Even supporters of 'constitutional carry' gun bill say veto override may be tough

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • saflak salt lake, UT
    April 4, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    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?

  • jskains Orem, UT
    April 3, 2013 7:13 a.m.

    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.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    April 2, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 1, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    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.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    April 1, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 1, 2013 2:11 p.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    April 1, 2013 2:10 p.m.

    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.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    April 1, 2013 1:42 p.m.


    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.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 1, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 1, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    April 1, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Onion Daze Payson, UT
    April 1, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    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".

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    April 1, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    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 business.

  • Wasatch Al South Jordan, UT
    April 1, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    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 you thinking?

  • Goldies Pa Hurricane/Washington, UT
    April 1, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    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

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 1, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    "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.

  • Orem Parent Orem, UT
    March 31, 2013 9:14 p.m.

    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.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    March 31, 2013 7:14 p.m.

    Calm reason and serious deliberation as to consequences is probably a good idea when dealing with firearms for everyone everywhere.

  • terrywbis WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    March 31, 2013 5:51 p.m.

    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...