Nation's largest gun show promoter criticizes proposed firearms legislation

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Global Warner Provo, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 6:34 p.m.

    I’m astounded at the fear and paranoia from right wingers. We need brave patriots to stand up for rational ideas that protect people, not gun “rights.” Most gun lovers have no understanding of constitutional law. Thank goodness for leaders who have common sense and seek what’s best for the people. I’m glad we have a rational police chief in SLC who sees the downsides to loose gun laws. We clearly need a background checks on every wanna-be gun buyer. Obviously, we also need to downsize magazine clips to a reasonable size, as well. We should also keep weapons out of churches, schools, and businesses. Let’s call out the NRA for what it really is, a self-interested lobby that only seeks money and political power to prop up its weakening hand. As for gun shows, manufacturers, and dealers, they are driven by greed at whatever the cost. While they demonstrate their fake expressions of sorrow after every mass killing, their acting skills on TV screens show the reality beneath the facade. They later gloat on their way to the bank as gun sales go higher. Let’s be rational. We must counter this great evil!

  • I-am-I South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2013 5:04 p.m.

    I think he makes a very good point assuming his statistics are correct. Legislating more laws and then not enforcing them does nothing. Maybe he has a financial stake in his opinion but by no means is his opinion unreasonable. Truthfully I do not think we have a gun violence problem in this country. Sadly tragedies happen. No law will ever stop that. Go to the FBI's website and find the number of violent crimes in the US. Then look at the number of violent crimes that involved a fire arm. Then take that number and divide it by what the 2010 Census tells you is the population of the United states. You will certainly get something less that half a percent and maybe something less than a half of a quarter of a percent. This is the likelihood of you getting shot in the next year and if you don't live in New York, Chicago, or Las Angeles (cities run largely by democrats mind you)your likelihood of getting shot gets a lot smaller. Guns aren't the problem.

  • wazzup Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 6:58 a.m.

    Biden's comments coincide with Pelosi's. Lets pass a bill now and read and worry about the details later. Really?

    I find it dispicable that liberals and Dems claim that if a new law saved but 1 child we should do it. Do they feel the same about abortion and pornography? Didn't think so.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    Outstanding bricha, real numbers. Sweet. And from wiki answers no less. But what I asked about was the number of children that are accidentally beat to death by bats. Were you able to find that number? I'll wait some more.

    But so 500 to 1000 people are killed each year in accidental deaths, eh? That's some pretty low percentage you cite there. Not a bad collateral damage is it? 500-1000 statistics. But you know what's funny? I've had two reletives killed in accidental gun shootings. (In neither of the accidents were the guns in their hands, by the way). What are the odds? Funny stuff. You think I'd hit the lottery with those odds by now. You want to know what else is funny? I've had guns pulled on me. My son has been robbed at gun point. On a safe street. I know numerous people that have commited suicide with a gun. And no I don't live in a bad area. What are the odds?

    Do you count those as real numbers?

  • bricha lehi, ut
    Feb. 4, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    Mark lets talk about real numbers here, on average between 500 - 1000 people die in accidental gun deaths per year. It is estimated (according to Wiki Answers) that there are about 200 million privately owned guns in the US. That means of all guns there is a .0005% chance per year that any gun will accidentally kill someone(that is using the 1000 accidental gun deaths per year).

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 12:14 a.m.

    "Bricha, you forgot all the knives, bats, hammers, etc. that also kill people. Just jump off the shelf and attack people"

    James, each year a number of children, and adults, are accidentally shot and injured or killed with guns. Can you please tell us how many children accidentally club themselves to death with a bat each year? Whether or not it just jumped off the shelf. I'll wait.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 9:37 p.m.

    Guns cost money. Ammo costs money. In combination they cost lives. This is because they are designed for one thing: to kill.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 9:10 p.m.

    Easier to sell to mentally ill people if no checks. Paranoid people buy more guns and ammo.

  • James1105 BOAZ, AL
    Feb. 3, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    Bricha, you forgot all the knives, bats, hammers, etc. that also kill people. Just jump off the shelf and attack people.

    What if all guns were confiscated - would the death rate be any less? Or, would people find other means to kill people?

    What if all guns were confiscated - how would women or older children protect themselves from abusive husbands or fathers?

    Artillery, bombs, rocket launchers/LAWs, and automatic weapons are already banned. Assault rifles were already banned, then they voted to un-ban them. They seem to have found a stopping place of restricting people's rights. There WERE (and still are) reasons that they stopped there.

    What's special about "assault rifles"? Why target them? Because they are usually painted a different color, lighter weight, targeted more at sales to the military? As far as American assault rifles, they generally are more expensive than foreign assault rifles.

    Why do I have one assault rifle? Because it was semi-automatic, which is convenient/nice to have when hunting, and because it was FAR CHEAPER than american made semi-automatic guns. In other words, I bought my SKS "assault rifle" for $79 (used) from a dealer vs. $400 for American semi-auto.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    So many people are fixated on the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment, but forget the "well regulated" part. How can a Militia be well-regulated without regulations?

    Even Justice Scalia, in his written opinion in the District of Columbia vs. Heller, states that regulations as to the type of weapon that is permitted, the places where it is permitted, and who is entitled to carry the weapon are legal.

  • JohnSwapp Fairview, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    It never ceases to amaze me that people actually believe that guns are to blame for crime. The root problem is the education of our children. If everyone in the country was taught from an early age to have respect for human life the crime rate would not be where it is now.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 10:51 p.m.

    "I am at the gun show now. There are a few scary people. Then I realized that the odds of anyone here interfering with my right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness is much lower than with the folks in DC."

    That's cool RBB, but did you notice the two really big signs at the entrance that say, in big letters, no loaded firearms. At least there used to be. I haven't been there in awhile.

    Anyway, from the crossroads of the west website:

    Q: Can I carry a loaded gun in the gun show? I have a Concealed Carry Permit.
    A: We respectfully request that you do not bring any loaded firearm into the gun show. Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns in the show.


    No loaded firearms and no loaded magazines are permitted in any Crossroads gun show. Your personal safety is our number one priority while you are at the show.

    Haha. Haha. Your own people don't trust you guys with your guns. Your own people. Hahaha.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 6:59 p.m.

    More people died in Chicago last year than people in the Middle East,killed with hand guns not assault rifles. every security person till carry a hand gun not assault riffles. the easiest way to discredit some is to be called crazy or senile. Even if their not. Madam Albeit, who was Sec. of State under Pres. Clinton, once said that she can see that the mentality of the people will be that of a 5 year old. That's crazy, or maybe it just may be.

  • r0cky74 Erda, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 6:41 p.m.

    Salt Lake City...Wake up! You have a police chief who is wanting to put a crack in the 2nd Amendment. It is time for him to go. We live in a world full of men who wish to exercise power over us and take away our freedoms. This is a very real threat that must not be allowed to take hold. Once the Amendment becomes cracked and limits are placed upon us, this opens the door to us eventually losing our rights to defend ourselves. That is the ultimate goal here despite what your chief is telling you. It would be nice to live in the world that many of my fellow democrats believe in, but we don't...period...end of story.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 6:38 p.m.

    If this gun ban succeeds, the criminally insane will then use other kinds of guns exclusively. Then they will want to ban these guns. What then? If we don't stand firm, banning all guns is then just a few steps away.

    And if this happens we still will not have solved the problem. The criminally insane can easily find other tools to murder. Knives, swords, fertilizer bombs, gasoline bombs. Some of these tools are more effective than any gun in mass killing. Any of these weapons are not as good to help a person defend themselves. A woman with a knife doesn't have much of a chance against a strong man who attacks her with a knife. She does have a good chance if both have a gun.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 6:18 p.m.

    Guns make people and families safer ... IF ... gun safety is practiced.

    1. Always treat a gun as if it is loaded,
    2. Unless a gun is supposed to be loaded, each time it is handled, verify it is unloaded.
    3. Teach each member of the household the rules of gun safety as soon as they are old enough.
    4. If any members of the household are too young or otherwise mentally unfit to handle a gun, keep guns out of their reach.

    It is often repeated that more people die in gun accidents than are saved by guns. Though I suspect this is untrue, (I would like to see actual statistics), this is definitely not true for people and families who treat guns with the respect they deserve.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 5:58 p.m.

    Law abiding people are not the problem, and should not have their rights curtailed. Guns have a legitimate use . They provide home and personal protection. In the event of a natural disaster they enable people to help protect their community.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Feb. 2, 2013 5:39 p.m.

    Clinton 2:52 pm - Who would you say should interpret the Constitution if not the Supreme Court? Isn't that how our government was designed - Executive, Legislative, Judicial; Checks and Balances - do any of those terms ring a bell to you. I am not saying, in any way, that law abiding citizens should not be allowed to own firearms for their protection, for sport or for any other reason that is not harmful to other humans. But I am suggesting that there should be or could be limitations to that right for our own protection and "freedom." And the most conservative court in the last 50 years has backed me up on that opinion with their decision of DC vs. Heller.

    There are a number of things we need to do in response to the latest, or to any of the past tragedies that have befallen the nation. But to suggest, as the Mr. Templeton has, that requiring background checks at gun shows does not make sense doesn't make sense to me. The District of Columbia previously had a gun ban but it was useless because guns were so easily accessible in neighboring Virgina. Just common sense, that's all we need.

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    I believe the purpose of the background checks is to stop those with violent criminal history and those who are mentally ill from buying guns. It seems to me that is right and appropriate.

  • Harley Rider Small Town, CT
    Feb. 2, 2013 5:06 p.m.

    Here are the current gun laws in place
    *It is a federal felony to be engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms without having a federal dealer's license
    * It is a crime for a federally licensed dealer to sell a gun without doing a background check--that's all dealers, everywhere, whether at retail stores or gun shows.
    *it is a federal felony to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person you know or should know is not legally allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm
    *It is a federal felony to submit false information on a background check form for the purpose of purchasing a firearm

    This is all that is needed for new Gun Law Legislation -

    Records of those who are prohibited by law from purchasing firearms (including those whose mental health history puts them in this category) should be included in the federal instant background check system.

    So will Gang Members , Drug Dealers , Hoodlums & Criminals go thru a gun check ? No Way and Washington should be concentrating on Our Wide Open Southern Border. What was Fast and Furious ? Google it

  • Harley Rider Small Town, CT
    Feb. 2, 2013 4:42 p.m.

    So all these new proposed gun laws are now going to make law abiding citizens criminals, and that is wrong. Gun control is not the answer to all the shootings going on at our schools. How about letting our kids go to school safely by allowing - teachers , bus drivers and school administrators to carry after taking gun safety classes & lots of range time. All of these politician's kids , grandkids have that benefit. These gun laws have nothing to do with safety as it has been proven many many times that guns in an open carry setting bring down all crime. So who's afraid of Armed Citizens ? Criminals and Our out of Control Politicians in Washington
    Some of you need to research the Patriot Act , NDAA Bill and why our Civil Liberties are disappearing. Law abiding Citizens do not deserve to be going to jail. Those in Washington no longer responds to the citizen's demands - ie No Obama Care - Stop the Foreign Occupations - No Wall Street Bail-outs - No Amnesty - Repeal the Patriot Act and now Leave our 2nd amendment god given rights alone

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 3:58 p.m.

    I am at the gun show now. There are a few scary people. Then I realized that the odds of anyone here interfering with my right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness is much lower than with the folks in DC.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    @micawber: Wouldn't "appropriate limitations" include things that actually matter, rather than cosmetic features of a gun that have no bearing whatsoever on its functionality?

    @one vote: Because non-sequitur arguments are so helpful.

    @ECR: What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? The problem is that people have been conditioned to think that it is OK for the government to limit our rights, or limit when and where we can exercise them. That was NEVER the intent, and I defy you to show me otherwise. Just because our government has become corrupt, and gotten out of hand to a certain extent, doesn't mean we should support them in inching further away from the intents and laws of the Constitution. Freedom requires vigilance, and quite frankly, many Americans, and many of you on this forum, are not fulfilling your civic duties to preserve freedom and liberty, in my opinion.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    @liberal larry: That's not what he said. He said that we're not enforcing existing laws. Of the 72,000 people who failed a background check in 2010, only 44 were prosecuted for providing false information. What was done with the other 72,000? So, his point to Biden was, if you can't enforce the law against the 72,000 people who failed background checks, then how is adding to that burden against law-abiding citizens going to help the matter. Biden's response was, "We'll deal with that when we get there." So the question that begs to be asked is, "Why can't we deal with the issue of the 72,000 failed applicants now then without adding any burden to law-abiding citizens?' The reason is because that isn't the point. Disarming America is. Don't buy into political sophistry.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    Here's a background check idea without it registering guns.

    Gun owners could pass a background check and be issued a numbered ID card with their info, photo and thumbprint on it. The government would only keep a copy of the card which would only have the card number and thumbprint.

    All gun sales, even private party sales, would require the participants to go to a gun store or police dept. Their card numbers would be checked to make sure that they're valid and the sale would be made. The gun's info would be registered to the card. The feds/police wouldn't know the name of the guns' owner. This would allay gun owners' fears of registration and prevent confiscation.

    If gun owners become felons or mentally ill, cops could run their prints to see if they are card owners. If so, the guns will have to be transferred to another. If they can't produce the guns, he could be charged with gunrunning.

    Recovered stolen guns could be listed on the Net under the owner's card number listing the gun's location.

    This system would work and satisfy everyone's concerns.

  • Cal Too Garland, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    Many people argue are attempting to interpret the 2nd amendment without having read the 2nd amendment. Here is the text: "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." The purpose of the 2nd amendment is for the security of a free state, and it says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". It doesn't say, "shall not be infringed except by action of Congress or the President of the United States". It doesn't list any type of weapon as being excluded. Congress does not have the authority to place ANY restrictions on firearms without amending the Constitution. I agree that restrictions make sense in present circumstances, but will there come a time when the people have to take up arms and form a militia in order to secure a free state? I'm not willing to take the chance. There are no guarantees when it comes to human behavior.

  • bricha lehi, ut
    Feb. 2, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    Beverly: The point I was making was that any tool/machine/whatever used incorrectly can have devastating and deadly consequences. Of course I am appalled by the number of people who die from guns, I hope and pray it goes down, but we are fooling ourselves to think that by taking away guns it will solve any kind of problem. There are any number of ways that one can hurt or kill another if one is intent enough. If we take away deadly tool, those who wish harm on others will find another.

    What we have is a human problem. We should be talking about how we can help our neighbors, how we can have a better sense of community, reaching out to all who might be struggling. Instead we are left demonizing anyone who responsibly owns a gun, and responsibly uses the gun for sport, and yes even for protection.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    Dear bricha: Using your car accident analogy is on shaky ground. You need a license to drive a car, the car has to be safety inspected each year, you can have your license revoked if you don't drive properly, you need insurance to drive a car. etc. etc, etc. Because of the 2nd Amendment, all of these restrictions are missing for those that own a gun. Would you support these measures, which are required to drive a car in the State of Utah, if only some of them were required to own a gun? People have to register their car with the DMV (Division of Motor Vehicles. How about registering your gun with a newly created agency- DGS Division of Gun Safety? Use you head. The car analogy is bogus.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    I firmly support Chief Burbank's position on gun issues He is an intelligent, thoughtful, law enforcement officer. He is stating what he thinks is best for the citizens he is sworn to protect. Nothing in his statements violates the U.S. Constitution; and what he states fulfills his sworn duties to protect the public he is sworn to protect. All I can say is, "Chief Burbank: Keep up the courageous and professional job you are doing for the people of Salt Lake." You have my full support.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 2, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    "Obama has no intention of ever leaving he White House, he is an absolute dictator and evil man doing what no other man in world history has been able to do, destroy the United States. He has made sure we have no nation to call to help us defend against his Despotic ambitions of absolute power. Guns and armed citizens are his only road block and the proposed legislation is one that will have absolute power to disarm to enslave all americans."

    "Registration is ONLY used for one thing, and that is eventual confiscation"

    Do you both realize that what you have posted is a complete disconnect from current or reasonably imagined reality?

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    @4:29 AM

    A DN reader wrote:

    "...Guns are our current defense against government oppression...".

    "...the most blatant and outrageous attempt we have ever faced...".

    "...Many fear... the demise of this country...".

    "...Obama has no intention of ever leaving he White House, he is an absolute dictator and evil man doing what no other man in world history has been able to do, destroy the United States. He has made sure we have no nation to call to help us defend against his Despotic ambitions of absolute power. Guns and armed citizens are his only road block and the proposed legislation is one that will have absolute power to disarm to enslave all americans...".

    "...suicide attacks by education disabled children...thousands will die daily...".

    The comments above are not a sarcastic rant nor are they an example of one who spends all of their mental energy filling their minds with reasons to validate their paranoia but must represent the honest belief of one who has a firm grip on reality.

    Thank you DN for providing readers a forum to express their 1st Amendment Rights.

  • Ralph West Jordan Taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    Re: My2Cents

    "Obama has no intention of ever leaving he White House, he is an absolute dictator and evil man doing what no other man in world history has been able to do, destroy the United States. He has made sure we have no nation to call to help us defend against his Despotic ambitions of absolute power. Guns and armed citizens are his only road block and the proposed legislation is one that will have absolute power to disarm to enslave all americans."

    Back away from the kool-aid my friend! The thought of people with your kind of thinking, running amok with an automatic weapon scares the be-jeebers out of me! If you are finding the Govt. as oppressive and restrictive as you note implies, you might want to consider another country, oh say Syria or maybe even Egypt, they say it is nice there this time of year!

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    "Registration is ONLY used for one thing, and that is eventual confiscation- the ultimate infringement."

    That's a bold statement. I suppose you have evidence that registration's sole aim is confiscation, and that representatives of the people are conspiring to overthrow our republic and its constitution by wanting background checks and sales to be registered. Oh, a liberal in the White House is not evidence.

    Since 1994, background checks have stopped more than 2 million illegal gun sales. You are right, though. Gun registration does not "solve" crime. It helps prevent crime. And since 1994, crime has gone down.

    If the government comes for your guns in the way you are implying with your paranoid mini-rant, they will be coming in Abrams Tanks and Apache helicopters. I'm pretty sure they won't call ahead or knock at your door.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    What is most interesting is that the push for gun control marches on even though there is Biden et al. admit that it will have little impact on gun murders. The "assault weapons" they want to ban are used in less than 2 percent of murders. "Oh gee, they took away my AR-15, I cannot shoot anyone with my 30-06 or revolver." How many deaths would have been prevented by banning a 30 round magazine. Almost none. In Colorado his semi-automatic jammed and he used a shot gun. If a nut case has 2 hand guns, he or she could get off 20 rounds before stopping to reload. By that time, the 3-4 seconds it takes to reload is a non-issue. If you really want to cut down on the murder rate 1) enforce the laws we already have and 2) change the culture that glories graphic violence. No. 2 is out because it would cut into Hollywood's profits if all these people in favor of gun control could not make movies where they shoot everybody and blood and guts are flying everywhere.

  • bricha lehi, ut
    Feb. 2, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    Beverly, with that thinking should we ban all cars? Unfortunately I couldn't find the statistics for 2012, but in 2010 32,885 people died in car accidents. I mean we can do better, in 2010 the us sold over 12 million cars!! What a travesty! 12 million killing machines incredible!

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    Feb. 2, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    Templeton's hangup with prosecuting background-check liars misses the point completely. I'm much less concerned about whether we prosecute the liars than whether we perform the check in the first place and prevent the sale of guns to people who shouldn't have them.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Are they going to give out free handguns as samples to anyone?

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    dwayne, The Supreme Court has held repeatedly that government can impose time, place and manner restraints on speech, if you believe the first amendment is a proper analog to the second.

    I don't believe the Constitution "guarantees unlimited rights to any firearm we want and ability to carry it anywhere where property rights take priority." Even Justice Scalia believes some limitations are appropriate. The question is what the appropriate limitations are.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Feb. 2, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    dwayne - I would challenge you to show me where the Second Amendment guarantees "unlimited right to any firearm we want and ability to carry it anywhere where property rights dont take priority."

    The Supreme Court - who, I would argue, is the final arbiter of the Constitution - said in their decision to strike down the District of Columbia's ban on gun ownership in the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

    This was not a liberal court, this is the court of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Olita. What they said, in a nutshell, was the right to bear arms is Constitution, but limitations on that right are Constitutional as well.

  • Robert Fowler Des Moines, IA
    Feb. 2, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    Burbank quit being a cop when he became Chief, that makes him a politician. Most of the Cops out on the street have no problem with armed citizens.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    The nation's largest gun show promoter has their own agenda, and it is not the welfare of the citizens of the nation.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    Mr. Templeton is absolutely right!

    In Utah over 2,000 people prohibited from buying guns were turned down, and their name and address and details of the felony were turned over to the BATFE. How many of those were prosecuted? Well, how many? Come one, must be hundreds at least.....

    Less than a handful. The Deseret News needs to ask the local BATFE and the U.S. Attorney exactly how many. And, maybe why the other 2,000 were NOT prosecuted?

    "Background checks" are not about keeping bad guys from getting guns, which they will get regardless of any laws ever passed, but are the number one priority for those who seek to create de facto registration lists of all guns and gun owners.

    Registration never solves any crimes. Ask the Canadians how that $2 Billion long gun registration scheme worked out, before they decided it was worthless and eliminated it.

    Registration is ONLY used for one thing, and that is eventual confiscation- the ultimate infringement. New York and California already have used registration lists to confiscate guns that had required to be registered, so this is not hypothetical.

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

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 7:44 a.m.


    Interesting. I do like where you are going with the discussion. Unfortunately there is a limited space here. The limitations you are speaking of in the 1st Amendment are part of the "Clear and Present Danger" clause rooted in the Supreme Court decision which jailed people speaking out against the Draft in WWI. They ruled against those speaking out against the Draft. There are also limitations on the 2nd Amendment, too. The average Citizen is prohibited from owning certain weapons as it is. The discussion, no matter what side a person falls upon, is the extent to which those limitations should be made.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    My question is, when did Chris Burbank become a justice of the Supreme Court? His quote in this article, “There are limitations to constitutional rights,” he said. “We need to … realize that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee you access to any firearm you want and the ability to carry it anywhere you want. Reasonableness says we're going to limit access.” is just plain scary. Of course there are some restrictions regarding the Second Amendment. One just can't go out and buy a fully automatic weapon without being properly licensed. Same thing with a cannon, or high explosives.

    Since Burbank swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of Utah and uphold the laws of Salt Lake City, he doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing what laws he has to enforce and defend. Even though he chooses, at times, not to enforce lawfully enacted laws mainly because he doesn't like them.

    Burbank needs to be summarily fired, and get someone that is interested in upholding and defending the law, even ones that he doesn't like.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    I'm sorry, but I don't care one bit what Templeton thinks. He is acting solely in his self-interest. Why would the writer this paper think he would say anything else. This is like talking to oil companies about environmental issues. They will never, in a million years, do what's right, but only do what puts more money in their pockets.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Feb. 2, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    The gun lobby can't have it both ways. It's inconsistent to state that gun violence is a mental health issue, and then in the same breath claim that we shouldn't have background checks to weed out felons and people with mental health problems.

    Most people have trouble separating their politics and their pocketbooks.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Feb. 2, 2013 7:04 a.m.

    Why should we care what this person thinks? Just another example of how the war against common sense with guns is driven on the far right by GREED. Pure and simple. Then there is the loud minority that somehow have bought into their thinking: that we are on a slippery slope to taking away everyone's weapons.

    If you are so paranoid that you believe this nonsense, you are probably one of the crazy people that should not be trusted to own a home armory of assault weapons.

    There is absolutely NO reason why everyone who buys a gun - anywhere - cannot undergo background checks and have to fully register the purchase. Instead of saying "no" to everything, let's start finding common ground and do something.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 2, 2013 6:34 a.m.

    Think just possibly this guy has a financial stake in the game? Hard to be objective when money is at stake.

    Universal background checks was once supported, even promoted by the NRA.

    "the NRA also took out an ad supporting background checks at gun shows:

    The message of the NRA’s 1999 campaign was “Be Reasonable,” and the organization bought ads in top newspapers, including USA Today, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal, to make its case.

    “We believe it’s reasonable to provide for instant background checks at gun shows, just like gun stores and pawn shops,” the USA Today ad reads."

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Feb. 2, 2013 5:57 a.m.

    How can he say he;s against TOUGHER background checks at gun shows when they don't do background checks at gun shows?

    Bottom line is we somehow have to keep guns out of the hands of criminal and dangerous mental health persons. A little inconvenience of a background check shouldn't be a problem for a law abiding citizen should it?

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 5:53 a.m.

    The economic engine in our life doesn't always make our decisions good. Do we really expect a "Gun Show Promoter" to support actions that would slow gun sales? Pointing at mental illness, pointing at the lack of enforcement of current laws, pointing at the need for armed guards in schools, as Henry David Thoreau said, "Hacking at the branches of evil, when we know the root cause." Readily available guns is the root cause and, as the President stated, "We can do better." Over the past five years around 30,000 people, each year, die from gun violence. In this coming year, if another 30,000 Americans die from gun violence, we should be ashamed of ourselves. We can and should do better.

  • Whoa Nellie American Fork, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 5:53 a.m.

    Biden is such a flake. Let's start enforcing the drug laws in this country. If that were to happen he would be conducting this program from jail. I thought using marijuana was illegal. I guess that doesn't apply to the vice president.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    Feb. 2, 2013 5:40 a.m.

    Well we'll address it sometime later. Next question?
    The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 4:29 a.m.

    US citizens have every right to oppose unconstitutional alterations of our rights and freedoms. Opposing government and legislators is our duty and obligation to preserve our way of life and government of the people.

    Guns are our current defense against government oppression and this is the most blatant and outrageous attempt we have ever faced in the last 250 years of existence. Many fear duty are ready for Absolute government control and the demise of this country. Rights to worship, talk, representation, and live as we please is ours to keep or surrender.

    Obama has no intention of ever leaving he White House, he is an absolute dictator and evil man doing what no other man in world history has been able to do, destroy the United States. He has made sure we have no nation to call to help us defend against his Despotic ambitions of absolute power. Guns and armed citizens are his only road block and the proposed legislation is one that will have absolute power to disarm to enslave all americans.

    If advocates think past events of suicide attacks by education disabled children, wait until the mentally able refuse to comply, thousands will die daily.