Quantcast
Utah

Lee, Hatch help kill background checks in gun bill

Comments

Return To Article
  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 7:21 p.m.

    Kudos to Sens. Lee and Hatch.

    It was a goofy bill from the start because (among other reasons) criminals don't submit themselves to "background checks".

    If Sen. Reid can figure out a way to have criminals submit to "background checks" he should definitely bring the bill back for reconsideration.

    Until then, STOP wasting time on laws that only penalize law-abiding citizens.

  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    April 17, 2013 7:35 p.m.

    It seems patently clear that it is impossible to implement universal background checks without tracking every gun purchase. Likewise, how do you track gun purchases without tracking guns themselves, and consequently the people who buy them. Without universal gun registration, there is no way to discover non-compliance, and hence no way to enforce a universal background check law. In other words, if the government doesn't know where the guns are, how can they track sales transactions?

    I, for one, am not comfortable with federal, state or local government knowing where all the guns are. As for those who told pollsters they supported universal background checks, I suspect they haven't thought this through very carefully, or they would not be willing to head down this road. As many have pointed out, if this had passed, it wouldn't work, and when it didn't work, the knee-jerk reaction would be to add the missing ingredient (registration) instead of repealing it.

    The right approach to limiting our exposure to mass violence of any kind is to put (back) in place a means for early intervention and help for mental health issues in our schools and strengthening families.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    April 17, 2013 7:34 p.m.

    I agree with President Obama. This is a day of shame.

    Innocents are being killed. Most of Americans want more background checks. Yet, the NRA holds power on our "representatives" (using the term loosely) and they do its bid.

    How many more deaths we need before we stop this insanity?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    April 17, 2013 7:44 p.m.

    so pathetic.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    April 17, 2013 8:03 p.m.

    The bill would have done nothing to stop the Newtown tragedy and wouldn't do anything to prevent criminals from getting guns.

    We need to address mental illness and stop blaming guns for the bad judgment of individuals and the illegal behavior of criminals.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 17, 2013 8:19 p.m.

    Any idiot can oppose something. But it takes thoughtful effort to propose a real solution to a serious problem.

    Why have neither Lee nor Hatch put forth any suggestions or bills that might help solve America's gun violence epidemic?

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    April 17, 2013 8:36 p.m.

    They should be very proud of themselves! Hope they sleep well at night over it. I own guns, and have zero issue with a background check. And, yes, I have thought this through. And while this bill would not stop every criminal from getting a gun, it would certainly make it harder. But hey, even some demos folded on this one, which just tells me it's not about what's right or wrong, how they feel or don't feel, it's about keeping their job. That goes for all politicians, including the elderly career politician Hatch!!

  • Any User Layton, UT
    April 17, 2013 9:09 p.m.

    We don;t need gun control, we need crome control.
    Our nation can determine if their was once life on Mars. Why can't we find ways to reduce crime?
    Surely "think tanks" can find new and innovative solutions to stopping crime without throwing tons of more money at it and without linmiting constitutional rights.
    President Obama has been using the intense emotional of Newtown victims to manipulate congress into passing gun control rather than using logic to stop criminals.

  • LogicInduced Ogden, UT
    April 17, 2013 9:26 p.m.

    It is one step in the right direction. However, the 2nd Ammendment guarantees my "right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't limit my right to just have guns. I have the right, per the Constitution, to bear any arms, including grenades, rocket launchers, bazookas, even nukes. How are we going to defend ourselves if criminals and enemy militaries are much better armed than our free citizens? Sen. Lee said he had to protect our rights given in the Constitution, but the government has already infringed on my rights....or maybe they need to ammend the 2nd Ammendment...

  • wer South Jordan, UT
    April 17, 2013 10:14 p.m.

    Background checks sound like a good idea, except they won't prevent the bad guys from getting guns.

    Kudos to both senators!

  • Brother Wolf Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2013 10:20 p.m.

    These comments remind me why I moved away from Utah. And, yes, I was sure the door didn't hit me on my way out. Thanks.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 17, 2013 10:40 p.m.

    I don't own a gun, and certainly don't believe in violence. However, in a spirit of gratitude, I must thank Senator Lee and Hatch for standing up for liberty and the Constitution. It is disheartening to see so many people still looking to Washington to solve problems, including violence stemming from those who misuse our 2nd amendment rights. So, I will continue to advocate for living a life in such a way that all the problems will disappear without, particularly without, attracting a politician's ear, something that surely only causes more misery for those who think those ears are really listening for understanding.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 17, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    I certainly hope Senators Hatch and Lee will likewise affirm the 1st Amendment by repealing federal laws against fraud, because everyone knows that people are going to lie anyway, and so it makes no sense to weaken our Constitution by making it illegal for good, hard working businessmen who might get carried away will selling a product and making false claims about a product or serive.

    People can say whatever they want, it's up to the listener to determine what is true, for them.

    For that matter, "Bribery" and "Corruption" are just extensions of free speech, and, as they say, money talks, so who are we to restrict the free speech of some inanimate object, like currency?

    Reaffirm the Constitution! Let freedom ring!

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    April 17, 2013 10:57 p.m.

    Kudos to Senators Lee and Hatch for voting to defend freedom, and to see through the untruthful claims about the supposed benefits of the background check bill and instead see the ultimate goal- a universal gun registration system that will be the foundation for gun confiscation.

    And, for One Old Man, Senator Hatch was a co-sponosr of the Cruz-Grassley alternate bill which was the second amendment to be voted on, defeated by the DEMOCRATS. That would have effectively addressed mental health issues, school safety, and increased enforcement of existing laws, plus a smaller background check. But, it was NOT gun registration and therefore the Democrats refused to adopt this common sense proposal.

    Be alert, the Obama team will never lat a crisis go to waste, and they will jump on any new horrific attack (other than by terrorists in Boston, or in Ben Gahzi) to resurrect their gun ban bill and try to ram it through in the middle of the night.

  • Ett Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 12:08 a.m.

    As Senator Lee said, we need to look at dealing with violence and violent people. Stacking more gun control laws on the populace isn't the answer. I am pleased and a bit surprised that Senator Hatch stepped up, but I'm glad he did. I get so tired of the "I own a gun" types who claim to cherish that right, but are always seeking to curtail it. The second amendment isn't just about owning firearms. It's about keeping the ability to protect the other rights guaranteed us, from usurpation by the government. We need to focus on the causes of violence itself, not the method. We need to address the perpetrators of violence, not their tools of choice. To do any less, dooms our efforts to failure.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 5:21 a.m.

    They also voted against the amendment to increase penalties for gun trafficking...

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 18, 2013 5:33 a.m.

    It answered the question of who Hatch and Lee are serving, and it's not the people of Utah. And claiming that they rely on the Constitution is perverse.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 18, 2013 5:33 a.m.

    Re: "Why have neither Lee nor Hatch put forth any suggestions or bills that might help solve America's gun violence?"

    Probably because all necessary laws are already in place. And none of the deranged liberal "suggestions or bills" would add anything of significance to the effort.

    Liberal gun-control proposals are not really about violence, anyway. They're about control of people and politics, not guns.

    If liberals were actually serious about curbing violence, they'd get tough on enforcing existing laws, like Rudy Giuliani did in NYC. It reduced violent crime by 57%, murders by 65%.

    Liberals know how to actually address violent crime. But they want festering political crises more than they want real solutions.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    April 18, 2013 5:48 a.m.

    It's good to know where your Senators stand on an issue. And Sentors Lee and Hatch have placed themselves clearly on the same side as the Adam Lanzas of the world. The parents and loved ones of the children gunned down in Newtown stood tearfully by and watched the United States Senate shamefully send a strong message that they will protect the freedoms of the future mass murderers rather than taking one small step forward to address this tragic phenomenon that seems to be uniquely American. The interesting thing is that while these two Sentors and their cohorts won this battle because of the strange Senate rules requiring 60 votes for passage, it still remains a fact that their vote was in the minority. So a minority of Senators, blinded by the propaganda of the NRA and the gun industry, can ensure that nothing will be done to address this tragic situation. Heaven help us.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    April 18, 2013 6:08 a.m.

    This is absolutely ridiculous. "Criminals don't submit to background checks, so why should we attempt to make anyone else submit to one when purchasing a gun?" I guess the same should go for people applying for teaching jobs, law enforcement, or any other job where the public's safety is a concern. After all, the criminals find a way around those background checks.

    Criminals don't care about shoplifting laws, so let's just get rid of them. There are enough people who don't pay attention to our speeding laws, our drinking and driving laws, and any other law established for the safety of us all, so let's just get rid of them.

    Let's face the truth, people, this isn't about background checks for gun owners, this is about how polarized we are politically, and we are looking at sticking it to Obama any way we can. It's time we put politics aside and do what's best for our country. Any law-abiding citizen should not be concerned about stricter background requirements to be able to purchase a gun.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 6:21 a.m.

    @DN Subscriber 2
    "But, it was NOT gun registration and therefore the Democrats refused to adopt this common sense proposal."

    Wrong. The Democratic bill Hatch and Lee just filibustered would impose a 15 year felony jail sentence on people who make a gun registry. Just like Obama said, you side is content to lie about it.

    @Cats
    "The bill would have done nothing to stop the Newtown tragedy and wouldn't do anything to prevent criminals from getting guns."

    Absolutely it would make it harder for criminals to get guns. Think about it this way, you support 21 as the age to buy alcohol right? You know some people are going to obtain alcohol anyway, but doesn't that limit on purchasing make it harder for underage drinkers to get alcohol? The expanded background checks aren't going to completely prevent criminals from getting guns, but the idea that it won't reduce the number that get guns flies in the face of logic.

    Oh and... stop blaming Democrats for the bill being watered down. It was your side that weakened the bill to the point it wouldn't have done too much.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    April 18, 2013 6:29 a.m.

    It is shameful that these 2 "men" kow-towed to the extremist gun lobby ($$$) and voted against principle: common sense background checks. Just because a loud, well-financed minority told them to.

    Rex Lee is rolling in his grave...

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 18, 2013 6:37 a.m.

    Let both sides now work together on solutions that will

    1) Not violate the rights of peaceful law abiding people.

    2) Actually will help solve the problem of violence in our society.

    May I make a few suggestions to kick off the discussion.

    Teach morality in the schools.

    Encourage young women to not try to have it all, teach them if they are going to have children, they need to raise them correctly. To stay home in their childrens formative years, and provide them with a basis of emotional stability, and teach their kids right from wrong. As a society we made a conscious decision to encourage women to enter the work force and send their kids to day care, therefore we can reverse this if we choose to.

    As a society we need to recognise that not just the body can have medical problems but the brain can too. We need to commit to providing adequate mental health care to all who need it.

    We need to look at our immigration, and if there are countries whose immigrants are sufficiently more violent than average, we should not allow immigration from these countries.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    April 18, 2013 6:35 a.m.

    @Fitness Freak and others,

    Explain to me how background checks "penalize" law-abiding citizens?? I would also like to know just how that national gun confiscation program would work...i.e. federal agents showing up at the door of every single gun owner in America? Really??

    If you are that paranoid, you should not have a weapon of any kind.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    April 18, 2013 6:43 a.m.

    Stop and think - the Boston Bombing killed three people. It is against federal law to possess any form of a bomb. The Sandy Hook School shooting killed 26 people, and you can buy the weapon used in this shooting on the internet without a background check. I would like to ask our Senators if this makes sense to them. Both Senator Hatch and Senator Lee should be ashamed of themselves. They have blocked a reasonable law that could saved some lives. I would love to hear their reasoned explanation for this nonsense. I'm a life long republican and I will not vote for Lee in the future. I hope Senator Hatch sticks to his word, this time, and doesn't run.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    No fear of losing re-election with their constituents. To quote Forrest Gump "Stupid is as Stupid does".

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    April 18, 2013 7:04 a.m.

    @10CC
    And i'm sure strict constitutionalists like Mike Lee and Orin Hatch will support the FCC in removing penalties for brief unplanned profanity or nudity over the air. I mean the first amendment doesn't say free speech if we like it. It just says freedom of speech.

  • Thucydides Herriman, UT
    April 18, 2013 7:26 a.m.

    "My hope is that we can now discuss the problems that lead to these violent acts and propose solutions that actually address them," Lee said.

    I am sure Sen. Lee will be leading the charge to expand treatment for mental illness and enforce existing gun laws.

    Cowards.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    April 18, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    Hands up: How many of you received at least 3 robo-calls from the NRA in the last few months leading up to the vote of this bill? How many received flyers in the mail soliciting money? Everyone I know has been deluged by the well-financed and loud machine of the NRA. They have been filling the airwaves and using the panic-driven talk shows of Rush, Hannity, etc. to get all of us deathly afraid of ANY restrictions on our guns. They pestered our Senators and made them all quake in their boots at the thought of going against them.

    You know this is why this bill was defeated. It has NOTHING to do with the Constitution!!

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 18, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    All the reasons that are given for universal 'this' or 'that' are the very reasons for getting back to constitutional principles, i.e. States Rights. There is not one federal law that couldn't be adjudicated better at the state level, including so called gun registration laws. But, let there be no mistake about all this. The more government action, the less dependence on God (or if the left doesn't like that, then use 'self'). This is all about government control and removing God from a 'right'. If you can remove God from those 'rights', then you have given control over to Government, and Liberty dies along with all other freedoms. That is why those who sacrifice the most are the last to surrender. Believe in God and believe in America.

  • Jefferson Kalispell, MT
    April 18, 2013 7:31 a.m.

    While most Americans may support background checks, this bill was flawed in the way it mandated implementation. Personally, I would support a background check performed in conjuntion with getting my driver's license. Just like my motorcycle endorsement, I pay $10, they run the check, my license has a "gun purchaser" endorsement on it. I violate the law so that I am no longer qualified, they confiscate that license and issue one without the endorsement. Does it solve everything? No. Is it a good first step? Yes. Private sales could be validated by simply asking to see my endorsement. You don't want it, you don't have to pay for it. This bill didn't close an "internet loophole." I've bought and sold guns over the internet. EVERY one of those transactions had to go through an FFL. High capacity magazines? In NY, my grandfather's Ruger .22 pistol bought in 1963 is "high capacity" with nine shots and they've never made another size magazine. You can't present something unworkable and then cry "foul" when it doesn't fly. Make a workable proposal, and it will pass.

  • Jefferson Kalispell, MT
    April 18, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    10CC: Sadly, the senate doesn't have to do this. The courts have already upheld a candidates right to lie about their voting record. They have upheld the right of companies to lie about qualities of their product so long as it does not specifically violate FDA restrictions. They have upheld the rights of individuals to lie about their military service, decorations and valor so long as it is not done for the express purpose of defrauding or obtaining monetary benefits directly from charities or support organizations. Freedom of speech has been twisted to cover burning flags, flipping off a police officer, picketing a grieving familie's funeral and pornography. Forgive, or at least understand those who try to keep similar abominable mutations from being inflicted on the 2nd ammendment. That is not to say we can't have background checks - even universal background checks. But it should be implemented in a relatively painless and transparent manner, not through heavy-handed policies. Presently the government does not pursue charges against even 0.1% of those attempting to pass a background check illegally. Fix that first.

  • Monk Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 18, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    So, the response to a serious epidemic of gun violence in our nation, is to do . . . nothing? It's not just voting against the current bill. There is a complete lack of solution from individuals like Hatch and Lee. Gun control is a small aspect of this issue, but it is still a real aspect. Cowering behind flawed interpretation of the 2nd amendment is not a solution. That is harping on a single point ad nauseum until you get your way.

    The current gun control laws in place can't be enforced because contradictory laws and regulations have been put in place by members of congress (with direct and indirect ties to the gun lobby) to prevent the ATF and states from properly enforcing and implementing the original laws. Then the cry from the 2nd amendment crowd is "enforce the current regs"! The fix is in because the price is right. Lee and Hatch are just more obstructionists from the party of "no".

  • Thucydides Herriman, UT
    April 18, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    If Senators Lee and Hatch are such strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution, can some explain to me why they are against the legalization of marijuana and same-sex marriage? Anyone?

    They love the Constitution only when it is convenient to their politics. Disgusting.

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    April 18, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    Thank you senators. The gun bill was not a solution. It was a big step in the wrong direction.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 18, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    Events of this week should have made it clear that what we have is a people problem, not a gun problem, not even a pressure cooker problem, but a people problem.

    Were we to take away all pressure cookers, or all baseball bats, or all cars, or all guns, or all knives, bad or mentally ill people will simply choose to make use of different tool to do what it is that they do. Eliminating any one tool will not solve the problem and we can't eliminate all possible tools.

    Given this let us work together to solve this problem keeping this in mind. If we don't characterise a problem properly, it is not possible to successfully solve the problem.

  • Userid333 Arlington, VA
    April 18, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    Aceroinox asserted "...Without universal gun registration, there is no way to discover non-compliance, and hence no way to enforce a universal background check law. In other words, if the government doesn't know where the guns are, how can they track sales transactions?"

    Not only is it possible to perform background checks without a gun registry, but the bill would have made it a felony to create a registry.

    Its a shame that this bill died on the back of ignorance (as seen here) and lies (such as the NRA's distortions about the impact on family sales).

    Utah was failed by its two Senators, which is all the more unsettling as they are smart enough to know better. They played into the paranoid fantasies rather than the facts.

    Google the bill and read it

    Sad, sad, sad. And sadder still that gun owners will not benefit from the protections built into the bill, such as the right to carry types of guns through states whose laws would otherwise forbid.

  • EdGrady Idaho Falls, ID
    April 18, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    Get used to hearing again the phrase "President Clinton."

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 18, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    How come a bomb that kills three people demands national attention, but a gun that kills many more people is unavoidable?

  • I-am-I South Jordan, UT
    April 18, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    Please reread Senator Lee's quote at the beginning of the article. That is how I feel on this issue. The Newtown Shooting would not have been avoided by any of these legislative actions. The Boston Marathon tragedy shows that legislation against guns does not reduce the potential for violent acts of large proportions. We must deal with people to mitigate (it's a really important word look it up) the risk of them happening. All in all we have already done a great job of mitigating the risk of violence in this country.

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    April 18, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    "My hope is that we can now discuss the problems that lead to these violent acts and propose solutions that actually address them,"

    I thought Lee didn't even want to have a discussion...? I don't necessarily agree with new gun control measures, but I do agree with Obama that it at least deserves discussion and a vote.

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    April 18, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    Glad this was defeated. Normal folks do not need more government intrusion and investigation. A waste of money.
    Enforce the laws for misuse and prosecute quickly. We have more than enough laws on the books to take care of those who commit crimes using firearms. No need to bother law abiding people.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    This is great news. Now illegal aliens can continue to cross our borders and buy guns without being hassled by a background check.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    April 18, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    It isn't the NRA or lobbying that's preventing gun control, it's the Constitution. And thank goodness there are enough senators that recognize that all of these disconcerting attempts at gun control are unconstitutional and will do nothing to curb gun violence.

    Taking away Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens does nothing to curb the behavior of the criminal.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    April 18, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    @ I-am-I and all others who think like you do,

    If there is no law that could stop the Newtown tragedy, then apply the same logic for all crimes and remove all our laws against murder, rape, child pornography, etc. Heaven knows we have thousands of laws against these crimes, yet people are victimized every single day.

    I've never heard before this "logic" that since we can't stop every case of something from happening, that we shouldn't even try. But I have heard a lot of people repeat this nonsense.

    Astounding!!

  • tomof12 Provo, UT
    April 18, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    I am appalled and embarrassed. Why on earth would you oppose a measure that can only help reduce violence? The argument that it won't stop everyone is grotesquely illogical. If it stops a significant number, it is worth its weight in gold. In no way does the requirement for universal background checks conflict with the 2nd Amendment, particularly as it was most recently interpreted by the Supreme Court. And these measures DO make a difference. Australia is a magnificent example. I can't help but feeling that the message here is: a Sandy Hook Elementary here and there is an acceptable price to pay. (And for what?!?) I wonder how many people would still oppose responsible gun control if it was THEIR child shot dead with his/her teacher and classmates.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    April 18, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    Let me see... Chris Dorner. Psychology major (certified and qualified), military service (requires background checks), police service (background check and psych tested). Now let me see, how did that background check stop him? Oh, it didn't. So why have a law that doesn't work?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 18, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    Re: "It's time we put politics aside and do what's best for our country."

    Agreed.

    That's why the Obama regime needs to step back from its freedom-robbing, un-American people-control proposals and start enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

    Liberals know what will work. And it's enforcement of current laws, NOT a gun registration scheme, magazine control, or gun-appearance control.

  • docport1 ,
    April 18, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    I wouldn't be bragging if I was one of those two Senators....I would hang my head in shame. It's time the state of Utah joined in with the rest of the country and stop thinking they are a unique people isolated from the troubles of the rest of the country. It's time the population stops listening to each other just because they have a common religion (of which I am a member) and start informing themselves about what life is really like.......it's not all hearts and flowers, and church on Sunday.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 18, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    Polls mean nothing. I could put together a poll saying the sky was green and if I worded it properly, I could get 90% of the respondents to agree that the sky was green. It's all part of the game played by both sides.

    The bottom line, you can't have universal background checks without requiring guns to be registered. There would be no way to enforce the law on every gun sale if the guns weren't registered. Plus, who is going to pay for the background check? I think that the current system we have in place is fine. I don't have a problem with a background check at point of sale in a retail establishment.

    I for one don't want my guns registered with either the state and for sure not the federal government. The fact that I own guns is not any of their business.

    Kudos to Hatch and Lee. Boo to all you naysayers. Freedom and the Constitution won out.

  • LogicInduced Ogden, UT
    April 18, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    Just to clarify, my first comment was mostly sarcastic. But I do feel the 2nd Amendment does need some updating and clarification. The term "arms" is any weapon, not just guns. I would hope the vast majority of people agree there are some "arms" which should not be available. There has to be a line drawn between legal arms and illegal arms. I am not an expert on guns, so I do not know where that line should be drawn; and maybe the current line is proper, but a line has to be drawn.

    The most ridiculous argument for guns is that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Using that logic every weapon should be legal. Rocket launchers and nukes don't kill people, people kill people...right?

    The 2nd most ridiculous argument is we need the weapons to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government...they have nuclear subs, an incredible air force, aircraft carriers, missiles, etc. Really? And if you buy that argument, then I'm sure you are for huge cuts in the Defense Department to weaken their possible takeover of all of our possessions and rights.

    God Bless America!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    April 18, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    Re: "And these measures DO make a difference."

    Sure they do -- to people that will NEVER engage in violence. It complicates their lives and makes it harder for them to peascefully and legally exercise their Constitutional rights.

    But to criminals? They can't and won't make the slightest difference, whatever.

    Makes one wonder about the Obama regime's real agenda, doesn't it?

  • I-am-I South Jordan, UT
    April 18, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    @eastcostcoug: Apparently you didn't understand what I wrote. I never said there was no law that could have stopped the Newtown shooting. I said that additional backgrounds checks would not have stopped the Newtown shooting. Remember, he stole the weapons from his mom. My opinion is this, as is clear in Senator Lee's remarks: We have plenty of laws to mitigate these kinds of issues although the enforcement of these laws may need refining. We also need to create laws and systems to help identify and treat the mentally ill. All in all we have a pretty good system, that doesn't mean it can't be improved. It means I don't think this law would have improved anything. A background check wouldn't have stopped Lanza from committing his terrible crimes. It's that simple. Aside from that trying to regulate private sales is not cost effective because for every large shooting in this country there are millions of private gun sales. I propose (1) we worry about bigger problems - car accident deaths for example, (2) if we worry about violence then lets attack real causes not imaginary ones.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 18, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    I am always amazed when liberals and progressives claim that the senators elected by a majority, republicans and conservatives don't represent Utah and them as if they violated a trust they have. You didn't vote for them. Why would they represent your liberal positions on issues of federal governance? They were elected to represent those who voted for them. Similarly I would not expect Matheson to represent the minority conservatives and republicans that did not vote for him. He will represent those of the majority that elected him.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    Has the Deseret News taken a position on expanded background checks? If not, they should. If so, do you recall what it is?

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    April 18, 2013 9:12 p.m.

    @Bacus0902 You act like the NRA is this evil entity that goes about operating against the will of the people. I pay my dues every month so that they will protect MY rights against the kind of mass ignorance that always gets displayed whenever anybody talks about guns. They did their job, as did our senators, in defending our Constitutional rights, so good on them.

    @Really??? We already have laws against killing people, so how do you suppose adding more laws to the myriad laws we already have is going to make one iota of difference? Also, "sticking it to Obama?" Really, that's is what you got out of this? I suggest a good read through our Constitution. Also, do you want the government cataloging everything you purchase? Yeah, me either!

  • perspicacious Salt lake city, Utah
    April 18, 2013 9:52 p.m.

    Lee and Hatch sold out to the NRA as we knew they would. Lee uses the excuse he follows the mandate of the Utah legislature. They are gun nuts and out of touch with 80% of the citizens. So we have a legislature and two senators who don't serve the voters and only pay homage to the gun nuts and lobbyist money. Time to get rid of them. We need leaders who will vote to protect the children.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 19, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    Side Note: Yesterday, the Senate voted on a measure to increase mental health funding and to help identify those individuals who have problems and should not have a gun. The vote was 98-2.

    Rand Paul and our MIKE LEE voted against this!

    Is he crazy?

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    April 20, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    Every Chief of Police will tell you that background checks save lives. Hatch and Lee have blood on their hands.

  • I-am-I South Jordan, UT
    April 20, 2013 5:07 p.m.

    @ Schwa, You probably shouldn't speak for every single chief of police ever. Hatch and Lee do not have blood on their hands please calm down. You see the current system has background checks. The liberals love to forget that part. It just doesn't have enough of them for the liberals primarily because it is not cost efficient. While every life is important, at some point we have to say as a society the risk of this happening is basically zero so we're not going to spend money on that, which means we can spend it to save more lives in another area. Exactly where that point is is tricky to determine and anything but absolute but it can be reasonably asserted. Also keep in mind basically zero and zero are different. We all deserve better rhetoric from our leaders and media. The issue as it has been marketed to you is, background checks v. no backgrounds checks. This is a horrible lie. The issue is existing background checks v. whatever current proposal to increase backgrounds checks chooses to step in the ring.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    April 21, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    Very sad that we have been spending our time, effort, and other resources trying to figure out ways of limiting the constitutional rights of self-protection instead of addressing the real issues of a bankrupt nation. People who really believe that more laws and more government are the answer to all the ills of society and our culture have to be among the most naive people on the planet. I've had decades of experience working with all levels of government, and I can assure you that politicians get it wrong at least 10 times more than they get it right. Thanks to the two Utah senators who got it right on this issue.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    April 21, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    We don't need Congress to be messing around with every single facet of humanity. There are many other mechanisms to address society's ills, and Washington has resoundingly proven that its "solutions" primarily make marginal situations bad, and bad situations worse. We really do need less government, less legislation, less taxation, and less public spending. That way, maybe we have a chance of actually surviving as a nation. THOSE are the issues that the politicians SHOULD be working on with all the power and discretion we've allotted to them.