Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Guns require permits

Comments

Return To Article
  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2013 1:41 a.m.

    "There are law enforcement officers to respond to urgent needs of our citizens when crises threaten us."

    Your argument fails right there. As the saying goes, "When mere SECONDS count, the police are only MINUTES away." (In other words, "minutes" are too late.)

    Concealed carry permits ultimately are pointless since they do not stop criminals who lack a permit from carrying a gun.

    Therefore the solution once again is deterrence -- criminals knowing that any citizens may be armed and is able to defend himself or herself -- and the ability to defend oneself or others against imminent threat.

    It is a citizen's Constitutional right.

    And this new law is not unique in the United States. It has not caused catastrophe other places.

    I am for availing oneself of training in the safe and proper use of guns.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    March 18, 2013 3:22 a.m.

    Respectfully, to the letter writer who served our Country, thank you for your service, but I believe that you have put the government to rule and reign over the people, when the Constitution puts all liberties and all rights directly on the people, except for those rights that they people willingly authorize the government to handle. The 2nd Amendment clearly and absolutely guarantees that the right to keep and bear arms is to be kept by the people and that the government cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    Every person who serves in the military swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. When personal beliefs contradict the oath that you have sworn to uphold, it seems to me that it is time to re-evaluate personal beliefs.

    God has set the example for us in keeping our oath. ". . . though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away . . ."

    An oath is an oath. It is not to be set aside.

    We should trust fellow citizens to do the right thing more than we trust officials in the government.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 18, 2013 4:28 a.m.

    Re: "As a retired U.S. Air Force officer, I was appalled . . . ."

    And you are, of course, suggesting that we should all be appalled, as well.

    We're not.

    A concealed-carry permit does next to nothing to assure safe and effective handling of the tools necessary for proper self defense. The idea was dreamed up by liberal anti-freedom groups to harass and hassle gun owners, and to unconstitutionally infringe the right to keep and bear arms, even in self defense.

    As an Air Force officer, you undoubtedly rubbed shoulders with a number of armed men and women. I'm betting none of them ever shot you. Nor were they required to procure a permit. You simply trusted in their training and common sense to permit them to accomplish the mission for which they were armed.

    Kinda like the proposed Utah law.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 18, 2013 5:12 a.m.

    One Question.

    Can someone tell me WHY, in all these mass shootings, that a fully automatic weapon were not used?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 18, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    "Concealed carry permits ultimately are pointless since they do not stop criminals who lack a permit from carrying a gun."

    Complete and utter NONSENSE.

    The writer is stating some good common sense here and is not advocating limiting weapons. What he is advocating is sensible training before they carry them. If they are adequately trained, they will have a much better chance of nailing a threat instead of nailing innocent bystanders.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 18, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    Re:JoeBlow

    The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Hughes Amendment in 1986 have all placed limits on how automatic guns can be bought and sold, but did not make it illegal to possess them entirely.

    Purchasing one requires submitting fingerprints and photographs to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, going through an FBI criminal background check, and paying a $200 tax, among other requirements. Only automatic weapons manufactured and registered with the federal government before 1986 can be bought, owned and sold.

    Consevative web sites are reporting that Lanza did not use the semi-automatic Bushmaster to kill the children, which is patently false.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 18, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses" --Karl T. Frederick--President of the NRA, in 1934

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    March 18, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    This guy is another elitist who thinks only he has the right to won a Gun if he wants to.

    Let me ask you this question, In the Air Force, did you fight for our Freedoms or for the Freedoms of Oppressive Corporate American slavemasters?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 18, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    As with the letter writer - I am also a USAF veteran.

    In addition to the traingin and qualify testing,
    He forgot to also mention the military already requires --

    extensive background checks,
    physical and mental health evaluations,
    RE-qualifying (it's not a life-long rubber stamp),
    and all weapons are ALWAYS 100% secured in the armory or gun safes.

    That's how professional handle weapons,

    Only a fool allows a mental case, with a vendetta, access to ANY weapon.

    [Mike, the 2nd amendment does allow for it either.]

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    March 18, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    Good sensible letter. And I thank you, sir, for your dedicated service to our nation.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 18, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    When someone writes something like "In the Air Force, did you fight for our Freedoms or for the Freedoms of Oppressive Corporate American slavemasters?" we probably should be worrying about the mental stability of that person.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 18, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal, you contradicted yourself. You talked about the letter writers training as well as those with whom he served. But the bill that was passed requires no training for pack a concealed weapon. I know people who are CWP instructors that do not require their students to shoot the guns to pass the course.

    There are a lot of dopes out there that, frankly, shouldn't be allowed to carry simply because they don't have the common sense of a gnat (I'm sure some would say that about me however, I am trained and sure of my ability with a firearm).

    Training and instruction is common sense to carry a weapon. One needs to know the law governing deadly force and how it applies. Not knowing that will cause problems. If I get on a jury where someone is getting prosecuted for a situation that was not a deadly force situation, they are going to jail if I have my way.

    My Uberconservative friend who is a CWP instructor is fine with the current law and is not in favor of so called, "constitutional carry". I'm the same way.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 18, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    To "Harold Nufer" and when you joined the Air Force, you swore to uphold and defend the constitution. Why do you now want to throw the constitution away to feel good?

    Do the liberals even realize that most guns used in crimes are purchased illegally? Do they even realize that in countries where the general population is not allowed to buy guns that the criminals still are able to get guns?

    To "Flashback" why do we have to require a test to verify that a person can shoot a gun? Do we have tests before you are able to practice freedom of speech or religion? What about the Press, they can do more damage by mishandling information than a mishandled gun can do, yet they are not regulated like guns. Should we require the press prove that it can write an unbiased story before they are allowed to publish stories?

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 18, 2013 1:12 p.m.

    To "Red Shirt" did you ever consider that in many countries where gun restrictions are enforced they have far less gun deaths than we do. Lets see, we already have 300 million guns in this country. Is that not enough? evidently not. According to the NRA we need a gun on every person. If we cannot have restrictions than why not let our teenagers pack heat to school. Oh, you say we need common sense. Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say to use common sense. If we can use common sense, than we can definitely consider additional restriction in the name of safety and reducing risks to the general public.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    The framers of the constitution did not have an understanding of mental illness or envision modern assault rifles and high capacity magazines, just as they did not include provisions on abortions or driving cars. Perhaps we should allow the unrestricted possession and carrying of only flintlock weapons, just as the authors of the 2nd amendment intended. Most people can imagine the founding fathers seeing the proposed legislation on assault rifles and background checks and saying, "Well duh."

  • ECR Burke, VA
    March 18, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    "The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time." Antonin Scalia in the majority opinion for District of Columbia vs. Heller.

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    @one old man

    "Complete and utter NONSENSE."

    It isn't nonsense at all. It is a point of fact, whether you deny the fact or not. The lack of a permit does not stop criminals from unlawfully using guns. Hence the right to keep and bear arms in order to defend oneself and other innocents.

    What IS nonsense is relying upon law enforcement, who are minutes away, when mere seconds count -- especially given that criminals will carry with or without a permit.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 18, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    To "louie" did you ever notice that the countries with stricter gun laws have more violent crime after enacting stricter gun laws?

    Did you notice that the US is only #11 for gun deaths in the world, and that the top 10 have more strict gun laws than the US? If you look at just homicides with guns, the US drops to #15.

    Have you ever noticed that the countries that have banned guns for their citizens have more deaths and murders with axes, swords, knives, bats, and other means? Did you notice that the US was #99 on overall homicide rates in the world?

    If you look at the nations where they have the strict gun control laws, it doesn't appear to be saving their people. In fact, gun laws appear to have little to no effect on overall homicide rates. There seems to be a larger cultural aspect that your ilk refuses to address.

    Why restrict guns? Japan did that, now they have to restrict knives and swords. What is the next item that they will have to "protect" their citizens from? Why do you want to follow down their failed path?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 18, 2013 4:39 p.m.

    Participating in a gun buy back because you believe that the criminals have too many guns, is like having yourself neutered because you believe the neighbors have too many kids.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 18, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    @RedShirt
    USS Enterprise, UT
    3:42 p.m. March 18, 2013

    Why restrict guns? Japan did that, now they have to restrict knives and swords. What is the next item that they will have to "protect" their citizens from? Why do you want to follow down their failed path?

    ==========

    Because...
    How many mass shootings did Japan have in the last 20 years?

    And if they choose to restrict knives and swords, then that puts them even that much further ahead of us.

    Face it - your "ilk" won't be happy until America has either has the unbridled freedom and lack of Government of Somalia,
    or
    the ultra-controlling, authoratative, uber-Nationalism of Nazi Germany.

    No compromising - Black or White - All-or-Nothingism...extremeism.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 18, 2013 8:21 p.m.

    to Red Shirt:

    You are incorrect on your facts about gun deaths. If you google "gun deaths by country" and go to the Wikipedia site, your will find that the US is about number 11 worst in the world as far the rate of gun deaths. What's more shameful is that we five to ten times higher than any European country. We are similar to Columbia and Mexico but worse than Peru and Nicaragua.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    March 18, 2013 9:33 p.m.

    Harold, if you'll carefully read the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution you'll see that no one can be denied a fire arm... here it is in part so you can see for yourself.:

    '... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

    And that means concealed or otherwise... It's quite simple.

    @one old man:
    "What he is advocating is sensible training before they carry them."

    Where you getting this stuff? There's nothing in the Constitution, the part about the right to bear arms, about training, sensible of otherwise.

    @casual observer:
    "The framers of the constitution did not have an understanding of mental illness or envision modern assault rifles and high capacity magazines..."

    Doesn't matter what they did or did not have an understanding of. The framers put the words in the Amendment and they stand... until Congress wants to do an amendment to an amendment.

    "...just as they did not include provisions on abortions or driving cars."

    That's why there's nothing in the Constitution about these issues.

    "Perhaps we should allow the unrestricted possession and carrying of only flintlock..."

    It doesn't say flintlock... It says 'arms.'

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    March 19, 2013 5:21 a.m.

    Thank you, Mr. Nufer, for an excellent and sensible letter. Contrary to what some think (and say here), there is nothing in the Constitution that says reasonable time-place-manner exceptions to the 2nd Amendment are prohibited, and that's exactly what you support. Thank you.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    March 19, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    There are a couple of things that strike me about this whole argument. I wonder how many of the "unrestricted gun rights" advocates on this thread fantasizing about defending themselves, have ever been in or even know anyone who has been in a situation where they had to defend their lives? There are very violent portions of our society but these groups are pretty insular. Look at the news at night. There is at least one gun killing every night..but these people know each other, live with one another, and more or less do business with on another. Rarely do they step out of their circle to do violence. They may break into your car, but it is highly improbable they will exert violence on you.

    Most gun violence experienced by the general population is self inflicted..read the obits.

    Secondly, the general population knows this in their gut. Gun ownership per household has gone from 50% in the 1950's to 34% today. It's the same and shrinking population that's keeping this fantasy argument going, and yes folks you are becoming more and more marginalized..thus the increase in shrillness.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 19, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    When dealing with gun nuts, common sense, practicality and reality go out the window.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 19, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    The problem with gun permits is it allows government to know who has guns, and this would be to confiscate guns.

    Government is not to be trusted when it comes to protecting the 2nd ammendment (unfortunately). Therefore calls that insist that guns be registered, or that permits are needed are not acceptable.

    Unfortunate but true.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    March 19, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    The oath to protect and defend the Constitution is just that. It is emphatically *not* an oath to protect and defend the constitutional interpretation of Mike Richards and Redshirt. Reasonable people can disagree on the interpretation of that document - and do so all the time. Demanding that your interpretation of the Constitution be held as the sole legitimate intepretation is not reasonable.

    Calling out the letter's author for failing his oath is more than just a little disgusting.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    cjb: "Government is not to be trusted when it comes to protecting the 2nd ammendment (unfortunately)."

    ----------------

    Why do you think this is true? Do you have any proof in the 200+ years of our history that our government has NOT protected the 2nd amendment? What are you reading? Where is your paranoia coming from? Can you give me examples?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 19, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    cjb
    Bountiful, UT
    The problem with gun permits is it allows government to know who has guns, and this would be to confiscate guns.

    =======

    Too late.

    The Republican Bush "Patriot Act" does more to infringe as to who has what than any gun registry possibly ever could.

    Where's your outrage over THAT?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 19, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    Re: "Only a fool allows a mental case, with a vendetta, access to ANY weapon."

    You mean fools like those proposing increased background checks?

    No background check will ever permit access to someone's medical or psychiatric records. That would not only be illegal, but extremely ill-advised, constituting yet another obstacle to obtaining needed medical or psychiatric treatment.

    The leftist ACLU would never permit it.

    So, expanded background checks WILL allow any mental case with a vendetta access to any weapon. The only people affected by such checks will be law-abiding non-mental cases, without a vendetta.

    Tellingly, not a single liberal "solution" would have had the slightest preventive effect in any of the horrific cases being exploited by the left for their propaganda value.

    Thus, not a single leftist "solutions" is reasonable, sensible, practical, or has the slightest connection to common sense.

    So, what is the left's REAL motive in seeking to disarm law-abiding America?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 19, 2013 3:57 p.m.

    Anti -- it's complete and utter nonsense to do nothing about the mess we have now.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    March 19, 2013 6:17 p.m.

    So well said, LDS Liberal.

  • Freedom#1 Kaysville, UT
    March 20, 2013 1:01 a.m.

    The chief and most vital role of government is to support the protection and lives of its law abiding citizens and NOT infringe upon their divine right to protect themselves.
    Our society was founded on adherence to divine, moral, natural law. Our Founders fought for and died to safeguard our rights of life, liberty and property. Those we have elected have sworn with an oath, that they would uphold our Constitution. We have entrusted our leaders not to infringe upon our inalienable rights. I implore all of us to standup for our divine rights!!!
    If we are complacent and our leaders infringe upon our rights to protect our lives, our liberty or property… criminals become empowered and law abiding citizens suffer and die.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 20, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    Re: "Anti -- it's complete and utter nonsense to do nothing about the mess we have now."

    Agreed -- but only doctrinaire, politically motivated liberals are doing nothing.

    The NRA has been busy for generations, teaching gun and hunter safety, and is primarily responsible for low US accidental shooting rate. The NRA and conservatives have been busy advocating, even implementing REAL common sense safety measures, like armed security in schools -- NPR had a segment on a successful program in Stockton, CA just this morning, and Utah has offered concealed carry classes to willing teachers and staff.

    Even the general public is getting the word -- many lives were saved last Monday by a concerned college student turning in his crazed roommate.

    Lost-in-the-sixties radicals, on the other hand, are stuck on stupid, advocating only illegal and thoroughly discredited concepts such as draconian, but useless background checks, limits on gun cosmetics, and unconstitutional limits on the size of commonly used semi-auto magazines.

    Liberal feelgood anti-gun measures do literally NOTHING about "the mess we have now."

  • picknpull88 pleasant grove, UT
    March 20, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    @ Redshirt-Why even try to get through to a liberal? Facts just don't matter to them. They think along the lines of Piers Morgan where they have to resort to name calling and will never address the real FACTS! Sad that we can't just devide the country in half at this point.

  • BaldFatMan west valley city, UT
    March 21, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    not sure why everyone is getting so bent out of shape over this issue, first off you can open carry a weapon in public as long as its not loaded, Utah law says unloaded is defined as no round in the chamber. so what is more likely to cause more fear 1) a gun concealed out of site , or 2) one thats displayed in the open for all to see?
    I took the CWP class, and let me say if you ever decide you need to use you weapon for self defense, you better be sure your life or the life of another was in serious danger,and even if you do decide the the us of deadly force was needed, you can still have a civil suit filed against you by a member of the family. I agree that some people should not carry a weapon, i think its very important to know how to use a weapon properly, and no matter what law is passed, criminals will still get a gun law or no law

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    Of course if your taking them out to potentially shoot other people for whatever reason.