Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: And so it begins...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Taylorsville, Utah, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    It is now official with SB11. Utah officially joins the ranks of states attempting to regain some of their sovereignty. I would like to see lines 126-127 removed, but still, let's get this thing passed.

  2. #2
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Francis Marion wrote:
    I would like to see lines 126-127 removed, but still, let's get this thing passed.
    Gun control written into non-gun control? Say it ain't so! :P

    At least amend the "two" to "four". Three round burst can be fun!
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  3. #3
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    OK, so the Senate has taken the first step to advance this bill, with a 19-10 vote.

    As expected, all of the Democrats voted against this bill, with the help of 2 Republicans. John Valentine and Lyle Hillyard.

    Most amusing, is the ignorance this bill has brought out of the folks who read the Lib Trib. This guy is my favorite, and nearly echoes the comments posted by the anti-gun crowd on the Trib's comment board. (Note: He is a self proclaimed gun owner, and as such, should be expected to have at least a tiny clue about firearm law.)


    red_grad_blue_fan:2/2/2010 2:18:00 PM


    Helperutah - get a life - this is not an LDS bill - as the article clearly stated, similar laws have been enacted in 20 other states.

    That being said...I'm Republican, conservative, a gun-owner, and LDS, and this bill makes no sense to me. I'm all for our right to own and buy firearms, but to blanket exclude any firearm manufactured in Utah from any federal law seems to go WAY beyond what we need to do to assert our rights as citizens.

    What if this law gets passed, and Kalishnikov decides to open up a plant here in Utah - that means that convicted, violent felons could be walking around Utah with automatic assault rifles, and it would be legal! Is this really what we want? I know that's a far-fetched scenario, but you get my point. Let's create a gun-ownership rights bill that makes sense, and protects our rights, rather than creating a whole new special class of rights.

    Like the Chocolatier said...we have plenty of issues and problems that demand our time, attention, and money. Why are we creating a whole new can of worms for ourselves?



    Like many on the Lib Trib's website, this guy is worried that Utah is trying to put Utah made machine guns in the hands of violent felons. What they don't seem to understand is that this legislation does nothing to change who can own a firearm in Utah, regardless of where it is made. Violent felons may not possess firearms now in Utah, and this bill does nothing change that.

    In fact if it does pass, and for some reason is upheld as lawful, I submit that the State of Utah will enact further legislation that mirrors federal law in regards to items such as supressors.

    Second is the mention of automatic weapons, or in this guy's case, Kalishnakovs. This bill specifically states that it does not apply to firearms that fire more than one round per trigger pull. (i.e. machine guns)

    (2) This chapter does not apply to:
    ...
    (c) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger
    or other firing device
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Payson, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,146

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    OK, so the Senate has taken the first step to advance this bill, with a 19-10 vote.

    As expected, all of the Democrats voted against this bill, with the help of 2 Republicans. John Valentine and Lyle Hillyard.

    Most amusing, is the ignorance this bill has brought out of the folks who read the Lib Trib. This guy is my favorite, and nearly echoes the comments posted by the anti-gun crowd on the Trib's comment board. (Note: He is a self proclaimed gun owner, and as such, should be expected to have at least a tiny clue about firearm law.)


    red_grad_blue_fan:2/2/2010 2:18:00 PM


    Helperutah - get a life - this is not an LDS bill - as the article clearly stated, similar laws have been enacted in 20 other states.

    That being said...I'm Republican, conservative, a gun-owner, and LDS, and this bill makes no sense to me. I'm all for our right to own and buy firearms, but to blanket exclude any firearm manufactured in Utah from any federal law seems to go WAY beyond what we need to do to assert our rights as citizens.

    What if this law gets passed, and Kalishnikov decides to open up a plant here in Utah - that means that convicted, violent felons could be walking around Utah with automatic assault rifles, and it would be legal! Is this really what we want? I know that's a far-fetched scenario, but you get my point. Let's create a gun-ownership rights bill that makes sense, and protects our rights, rather than creating a whole new special class of rights.

    Like the Chocolatier said...we have plenty of issues and problems that demand our time, attention, and money. Why are we creating a whole new can of worms for ourselves?



    Like many on the Lib Trib's website, this guy is worried that Utah is trying to put Utah made machine guns in the hands of violent felons. What they don't seem to understand is that this legislation does nothing to change who can own a firearm in Utah, regardless of where it is made. Violent felons may not possess firearms now in Utah, and this bill does nothing change that.

    In fact if it does pass, and for some reason is upheld as lawful, I submit that the State of Utah will enact further legislation that mirrors federal law in regards to items such as supressors.

    Second is the mention of automatic weapons, or in this guy's case, Kalishnakovs. This bill specifically states that it does not apply to firearms that fire more than one round per trigger pull. (i.e. machine guns)

    (2) This chapter does not apply to:
    ...
    (c) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger
    or other firing device
    Because of that mans comment (full autos) I feel like OCing my ar15

  5. #5
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    More people freaking out that we are trying to arm violent felons. Let your voice be heard.

    http://www.standard.net/node/21920&c...o2SiZKhWrdRw6w
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  6. #6
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    The House has now advanced this bill as well, with a vote of 56-17-2! :celebrate
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    I just came across the New Hampshire version, it has a clause that we should have added:

    Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony....
    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2010/HB1285.html

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •