I vote to protect our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms! The Founding Fathers
knew what they were doing when they put this in the Constitution. This is the
right to protect and defend ourselves (not necessarily just for hunting season).
Its actually "emotions" that overpowered facts resulting in a really
decent bill from leaving committee earlier this week in Wyoming.To
be Conservative does not mean to be weak and meek and yielding. Quite the
opposite - it means to stand boldly for conservative principles, which includes
doing what is necessary for States to protect themselves from the Federal
Government usurping 2nd Amendment rights.
Recent events in New Orleans prove that judicial review is a wholly inadequate
remedy for citizens whose firearms are seized by federal troops or federal
agents. During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, federal troops seized many
firearms from innocent, law abiding citizens. This expensive federal
intervention left many law abiding citizens unable to protect their home and
property from looters, during that unstable time in New Orleans. Just when the
People needed their arms the most, they were disarmed by the feds!Even after winning lengthy court cases that successfully challenged the
constitutionality of those gun seizures, some citizens were still unable to
retrieve their firearms. The firearms had been stolen while they were supposedly
being kept "safe and sound" by the federal troops.Instead of
the traditional process of judicial review, America needs to embrace
nullification as a means of protecting the Constitutional Rights of citizens.
The enactment and enforcement of such legislation would not be just an empty
"message" to the federal government. Rather, it would be a civil,
legitimate, peaceful, and proactive effort to establish a new precedent, with
regard to the relationship between the federal government and the States. Utah
should lead the way!
The Second Amendment is cast in stone. It and the rest of the Amendments are
also. They are our guarantees of freedom. I am not willing to trade my right of
freedom to protect myself guaranteed by the Second for a percieved safety mine
or yours or anyones. I am also in favor of any legislation or statement that
lets the Obama bunch know that Utah stands for Freedom. George
Orwell wrote:Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a
dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in
order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution.
The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
Too late, Guv. These people are already convinced that the sacred 2nd Amendment
can't be touched -- as if it's legal now to own every weapon out there
from nerve gas to atomic bombs. You can't even begin to get them to
understand that we've had limits on the 2nd for ages now.
Enforce background checks on all gun sales. The 2nd Amendment is restricted to
Americans only. Without background checks, how will you know that you're
selling a gun to an American?
@ Moderate- You have fallen for the "Background checks protect us"
lie.Criminals seldom get guns from legitimate sources to start with.
70% by theft or trading with drug dealers, or "straw purchases" where
someone with a clean record (or fake ID) can pass a background check.2,000 people a year fail current background checks in Utah, but less than 5
are prosecuted, so they are not used to punish criminal acts. Why? Who is
letting felons go unpunished? "Universal background checks"
are code for "registering all guns and gun owners" which has nothing to
to with preventing or solving crimes- ask the Canadians who scrapped a decade
long $2 billion gun registration program that did nothing worthwhile.Registration is ONLY needed for eventual confiscation- and confiscation has
been mentioned by Sen Feinstein, NY's Cuomo, and a Missouri legislator, and
already happened in NYC and California after previous registration mandates, so
this is not some paranoid hypothetical fear.It's not the guns,
it's the criminals! Enforce the existing laws and that will do more than
passing any new ones.I respect your freedom of choice not to own a
gun, but want one to defend my freedom and family!
None of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights is absolute. You remember
the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment, but you forget
the "well-regulated" part. How can something be well-regulated without
regulations? Even Justice Scalia, in his majority opinion in the District of
Columbia vs. Heller case said: "nothing in our opinion should 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." It is legal to regulate
firearms, and simple things like required background checks to make sure that
all gun owners are not felons and not mentally defective are legal. I believe
that it would be legal to rescind the right to own firearms if a person has been
shown to be negligent or reckless with them.
Making assault weapons illegal does not infringe on your second amendment rights
any more than making rocket-propelled grenades illegal does. Why aren't
the second amendment quoters fighting for those?Unless you favor
letting people own nukes, then you understand there's a line that has to be
drawn regarding how much weapon is too much. Where we disagree is where that
line should be drawn. I think an assault rifle is too much weapon and you
don't. Fortunately for me, my side is going to win this debate.
Mokat you said, "The Second Amendment is cast in stone. It and the rest of
the Amendments are also. Are you familiar with the 18th amendment and the 21st
Amendment? Many on here fail to read the 2nd Amendment. The second
amendment simply gives you the right to bear arms. It does not say you have the
right to bear any and every weapon you choose without anyone monitoring. NO ONE
is trying to take that right away. All our rights have limitations, freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly. Why would anyone think that
the right to bear arms is the only absolute and unrestricted freedom the
constitution provides. The idea that a Utah lawmaker would proposed
that we make enforcing federal laws a felony should be frightening and is an
example of out of control paranoia. I applaud the governor for trying to bring
some level of common sense to this topic.
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I'm not sure what part of that Gov Herbert is not understanding. He is
too wishy-washy on this issue (and on education ). I have lost a lot of respect
for Gov Herbert on several fronts lately. Instead of making decisions based on
what the people of Utah want, he seems to be basing decisions on the loss or
gain of Federal dollars. Thank God the Sheriff's Association has a better
understanding of the US Constitution and the Utah Constitution than the Gov
EDM,I don't care about accumulating nukes or any other weapons
of mass destruction. I'll bet if you ask the above posters, or any other
defender of the Bill of Rights, they don't either. If this discussion
really were about banning weapons of mass destruction, we wouldn't be
making a deal out of it. But, of course, it isn't. This discussion is about
the proposed legislation to ban 'military style' assault rifles. Quit
trying to make this argument something else. It just simply isn't.
"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." James
Madison, The Constitution of the United States of America"Disarm
the people-that is the best and most effective way to enslave them." James
MadisonWords have meaning.
What is the Governor's duty? Is his duty to support both the Utah State
Constitution and the United States Constitution? He cannot tell us that he
supports the U.S. Constitution if he wavers on "gun control". He knows,
just as every citizen in America knows, that the right to keep and bear arms is
guaranteed by the Constitution. Even if it were not specifically stated, it
would still be a right held by the people because gun control is not a duty that
was assigned to the Federal Government; therefore, it falls to the States and to
the people to handle that assignment. Because it is listed in the Constitution,
it is beyond the scope of the State. A State cannot infringe on a
right guaranteed by the Constitution. The PEOPLE are responsible to handle gun
control. That right is left to each citizen to act responsibly. No law can be
passed that infringes on our right to keep and bear arms. Innumerable laws on the books enable the State to prosecute anyone who commits
a crime. That's the proper way to handle lawlessness - after a crime is
DNSub - You have fallen for the "Background checks will steal our guns"
lie.It was a pleasant surprise to see a comment from the governor
with some good common sense in it.
@Fred44'The second amendment simply gives you the right to bear
arms. It does not say you have the right to bear any and every weapon you choose
without anyone monitoring.'If you are implying that because
'military style' assault weapon possession and ownership, because it
isn't expressly included in the right to bear arms, is not protected by the
Constitution, then I have to disagree with you in the strongest way. I have no
desire to accumulate tanks and howitzers, but if you think I don't have the
right to arm myself with the most basic defense weapon, the AR-15, then we do
not see eye to eye on this, in any way. Regardless, I simply will not subject
myself or comply with such a false and warped interpretation of The Bill of
Mike Richards says: "Innumerable laws on the books enable the State to
prosecute anyone who commits a crime. That's the proper way to handle
lawlessness - after a crime is committed."And that is EXACTLY
the problem. How many dead at Trolley Square? How many dead in Connecticut?
How many dead in Aurora? How many dead in gang shootings?As it
stands now, ANYONE can go to a gun show, contact a "private seller" and
walk away with a gun.As it stands now, people with long histories of
violent MISDEMEANORS may purchase guns legally.It's pure
nonsense to oppose efforts to restrict gun possession by people who
shouldn't have them.
killpack,I do not own guns, and really don't pay that much
attention to different weapons. Because of that I would not presume to enter
the discussion of which weapons should be allowed and which should not be
allowed. My point is very simple, the second amendment provides a right like
the the first amendment does. That right is not absolute, there are
limitations. I would like to think that sensible people could come together and
reach sensible solutions to the growing problems with gun violence we are facing
in this country. I think the NRA should be a key player in these
discussions, but not with the current stance and the paranoia that their
spokespersons are trying to create. By talking about mental health (which I
agree should be part of the discussion) and violent video games and movies
(which again I agree should be part of the discussion)but taking guns and ammo
and ammo clips and tightening background checks off the table completely in the
discussion doesn't give them much credibility outside of gun owners who are
paranoid (not all gun owners).I would like to see a dialogue that
leads to real solutions.
@Robin sounds as though you are in the right State.Please atay there. All
semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines would be banned, all guns would
be registered and no ammunition could be bought without a special permit in
California under a sweeping list of bills rolled out Thursday by state Senate
Democrats.The 10-bill package constitutes the single largest gun
control push in decades in the Golden State, which already boasts some of the
nation's strictest gun laws. It joins equally controversial proposals from
Assembly Democrats that would regulate and tax ammunition sales and consider
taking the state's 166,000 registered assault weapons from their owners.Fred44NO ONE is trying to take that right away. Really! Please read
To "Moderate" like others have already said. Why not enforce the laws
that we already have?There are thousands of forms filled out each
year for background checks, and the criminals lie on the forms. The Federal
Government, which is supposed to prosecute those people, does not do anything
about it.What good will it do to put more laws on the books, if the
government isn't enforcing the laws that they already have?
i can protect and stay free with a 30 30 or a model 870 shot gun i dont need
assault rifles, and dont know what all of you think is happening here anyway.
you would shoot a federal officer that took your 30 round magazine? maybe you
are who you should be protecting yourself from. killing ruins the soul. these
people are americans too. ive served in the army, and i like my country. and its
people lets talk things out not shoot it out.
Do we have "preemptive" laws restricting speech? Do we have to have a
document from the government allowing us to speak? Sure, almost everyone knows
that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is going to result in
prosecution, but do we have to have permission from the government before using
our guaranteed right to speak?Those who tell us that the government
has the right to restrict us before we do something had better think long and
hard about their 1st Amendment right to speak without permission from the
government. They are demanding infringement from the government on one right.
Why would they be surprised if the government trampled all over another
right?There is no option for the Governor. He is either for the
Constitution or he is against the Constitution. If he is for the Constitution,
he will defend our right to keep and bear arms. He will demand that the Federal
Government respect our right to keep and bear arms and that it leave the
citizens of Utah alone regarding that right. He will also demand that the
Federal Government restrict itself to those duties authorized by the people.