• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

And so it begins...

Francis Marion

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
194
Location
Taylorsville, Utah, USA
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.
 

Kevin Jensen

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
2,313
Location
Santaquin, Utah, USA
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! ;)
 

Kevin Jensen

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
2,313
Location
Santaquin, Utah, USA
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
 

b1ack5mith

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
1,146
Location
Payson, Utah, USA
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 :)
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,072
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
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
 
Top