Repeal of UT loaded prohibition?

imported post

Has anyone started to push for repeal of the loaded prohibition, without license, as unconstitutional based on State law or post Heller on Fed. law?

imported post

Senator Mark Madsen (R) has introduced legislation in the past that would undo this statute, but the bill usually gets stuck because of the haters. :X

http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2006/bills/sbillint/sb0024.htm

imported post

To be honest (and hope no one hates me for it) I don't think it is unconstitutional and actually a pretty good law myself, I still carry Utah "unloaded" even with my Utah CFP. Unless someone can tell me how it infringes on Utah Constitution Article 1, Section 6 and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I'm willing to listen and believe me if you have a good argument I'm "open-minded" more then the left is.

imported post

I don't think our founders intended for us to carry unloaded firearms. While I think Israeli carry might be best for some, I don't think the state should have to regulate it.

imported post

Are we talking about the Founding Fathers of the United States or of the State of Utah?

imported post

I would hope both. In light of today's Supreme Court Ruling, here is a solid opinion that could be used to have this law removed.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64. 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Click to expand...

Now I know it says trigger lock, but this part of the opinion deals with self defense. The argument could be made that one cannot defend his family with an unloaded firearm.

imported post

I only ask because if you look at the history of guns from 1776 (Declaration of Indepedence) and 1896 (Utah) guns were much different. In 1776 and during the days of the Founding Fathers you cocked each time you fired with the old muzzle loaders. In fact you had to reload after each pull of the trigger. In 1847-1896 and around the time of the Civil War you still had to do the same thing. With that said it appears that in 1776 and 1896 they still had a two action (cock and pull) before the firearm would go off. So I'm just bringing up the history of when the Second Amendment and Article 1, Section 6 were made because they had to do the same thing and didn't have all these laws. Given they didn't have the violence or crime as we do now... well... debatable... they were at war most of the time... I'm just looking at how they carried which, seems to be, a double action (cock and pull) to make the weapon go *BOOM*.

Please let me state I'm all for removing this from Utah Law and support those that don't have a Utah CFP or one the state recognizes so they can carry open loaded without a CFP. I'm not trying to be a Liberal gun hater or anything like that, just looking at it from another point.

imported post

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,

that only those arms in existence in the 18th century

are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret

constitutional rights that way. Just as the First

Amendment protects modern forms of communications,

e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,

849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern

forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,

35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima

facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,

even those that were not in existence at the time of the

founding."



This is from pageeight of the Scalia Opinion.

imported post

Outsider wrote:

To be honest (and hope no one hates me for it) I don't think it is unconstitutional and actually a pretty good law myself, I still carry Utah "unloaded" even with my Utah CFP. Unless someone can tell me how it infringes on Utah Constitution Article 1, Section 6 and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I'm willing to listen and believe me if you have a good argument I'm "open-minded" more then the left is.

Click to expand...

How is carrying unloaded anything other than a political statement? "Um excuse me criminal with a gun to my head I'm gonna load my unloaded pistol right now so I can shoot you, ok?". That'll go over real well. You'll get no defense from an unloaded gun in a situation where seconds count, which I'd say quite a few go down that way. I'msurprised that it isn't legal to open carry loaded in Utah, kinda defeats the purpose imo.

imported post

randont wrote:

Outsider wrote:

To be honest (and hope no one hates me for it) I don't think it is unconstitutional and actually a pretty good law myself, I still carry Utah "unloaded" even with my Utah CFP. Unless someone can tell me how it infringes on Utah Constitution Article 1, Section 6 and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I'm willing to listen and believe me if you have a good argument I'm "open-minded" more then the left is.

Click to expand...

How is carrying unloaded anything other than a political statement? "Um excuse me criminal with a gun to my head I'm gonna load my unloaded pistol right now so I can shoot you, ok?". That'll go over real well. You'll get no defense from an unloaded gun in a situation where seconds count, which I'd say quite a few go down that way. I'msurprised that it isn't legal to open carry loaded in Utah, kinda defeats the purpose imo.

Click to expand...

Believe me when we ALL here AGREES with you:cuss:.

This something that we want to get away from.

imported post

randont wrote:

How is carrying unloaded anything other than a political statement? "Um excuse me criminal with a gun to my head I'm gonna load my unloaded pistol right now so I can shoot you, ok?". That'll go over real well. You'll get no defense from an unloaded gun in a situation where seconds count, which I'd say quite a few go down that way. I'msurprised that it isn't legal to open carry loaded in Utah, kinda defeats the purpose imo.

Click to expand...

I had a teammate that answered properly when an AF security officer found a handgun in his car and asked if it was loaded, "It wouldn't be any good if it wasn't."

Also, be sure to support http://www.votefidler.org to add another pro-gun senator to our state legislature.

imported post

Francis Marion wrote:

Also, be sure to support http://www.votefidler.org to add another pro-gun senator to our state legislature.

Click to expand...

This is the late Senator Ed Mayne's district, now held by his widow. While I disagreed with Sen. Mayne on most issues, he being a big union man, he was one of the VERY RARE democrats who was solidly pro-gun in his voting, near as I can recall.

Mrs. Mayne voted correctly on Madsen's "Katrina Bill," SB 157, along with every other Senator save McCoy and Romero (who voted against and (Van Tassell who was absent). She also voted correctly on SB 67, the parking lot preemption bill. But again, it passed the Senate by such a wide margin as to make it another difficult one to judge where she really stands on RKBA.

This will be a tough one for any republican to win; and I note in that Fidler has, wisely in this case, NOT emphasized his party affiliation.

If he is really pro-RKBA, he can use all the help he can get.

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

Francis Marion wrote:

Also, be sure to support http://www.votefidler.org to add another pro-gun senator to our state legislature.

Click to expand...

This is the late Senator Ed Mayne's district, now held by his widow. While I disagreed with Sen. Mayne on most issues, he being a big union man, he was one of the VERY RARE democrats who was solidly pro-gun in his voting, near as I can recall.

Mrs. Mayne voted correctly on Madsen's "Katrina Bill," SB 157, along with every other Senator save McCoy and Romero (who voted against and (Van Tassell who was absent). She also voted correctly on SB 67, the parking lot preemption bill. But again, it passed the Senate by such a wide margin as to make it another difficult one to judge where she really stands on RKBA.

This will be a tough one for any republican to win; and I note in that Fidler has, wisely in this case, NOT emphasized his party affiliation.

If he is really pro-RKBA, he can use all the help he can get.

Click to expand...

His primary campaign focus is family oriented; improving educational opportunities and revising laws to promote two parent involvement with children - divorced or otherwise.

Last month he told me he was going to attend a CFP class with his wife and I redirected him to FBMG Larry's class at Cabellas. He spent time in the Utah National Guard with the 19th SFG. Finally, if he's not the most pro RKBA senator in the UT senate, he'll have three vet. brothers who will be very sore with him. After his wife and possibly mother, I probably have the most influence on him. If you have any suggested legislation, we can get together and put something together and I'll get him to submit it. We just have to get him elected first.

imported post

randont wrote:

Outsider wrote:

To be honest (and hope no one hates me for it) I don't think it is unconstitutional and actually a pretty good law myself, I still carry Utah "unloaded" even with my Utah CFP. Unless someone can tell me how it infringes on Utah Constitution Article 1, Section 6 and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I'm willing to listen and believe me if you have a good argument I'm "open-minded" more then the left is.

Click to expand...

How is carrying unloaded anything other than a political statement? "Um excuse me criminal with a gun to my head I'm gonna load my unloaded pistol right now so I can shoot you, ok?".

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that this is the Utah forum, and Utah law has a peculiar definition of "unloaded". Basically, unloaded means Israeli carry -- full magazine but no round in the chamber. With a little practice you can rack the slide as part of your draw motion, so it doesn't inhibit shooting that much.