Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/5/2001 7:57:00 AM EDT
[url]http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,300007414,00.html?[/url]
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 9:40:46 AM EDT
Utah State Constitution: [b]"The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms." (Art. I, § 6)[/b]
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 10:19:20 AM EDT
If this law is illegal then what about all the other laws that the federal government places against guns? The only legal laws are those that take guns away from people or something?
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 10:31:45 AM EDT
If you read the article, you'd see that the issue isn't the fact that it's a gun control law that's pro-ownership. The problem is that the laws of the State of Utah do not allow anyone but the State Legislature to pass any gun control laws, either pro or anti-ownership. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 11:05:29 AM EDT
I hate to be the one to go there and tell them, the town folks, that it is illegal to bear arms. They might have to burn the whole town down.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 1:00:27 PM EDT
It's not illegal for them to have firearms in every home, but it is illegal for the township to make it mandatory, under state law, and if I'm not mistaken, it would be unconstitutional as well. We are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, but you don't have to if you don't want to. These guys knew this when they wrote the ordinance up. They just wanted to make a statement. Like"there are responsible average citizens out here who are not crazy despite what you see on our great liberal telivision networks who disagree with what the gov. is doing and this is what we're gonna do about it."
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 1:43:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 3:36:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2001 3:37:17 PM EDT by ckapsl]
I lived in Utah for six years. The state's firearms preemption law is, in my opinion, one of the strongest in the US. You can read it at: [url]www.livepublish.le.state.ut.us/lpBin20/lpext.dll/InfobaseUtahCode/10d54/1148c/114e5?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0[/url] The text is here: 76-10-500. Uniform law. 1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state. Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be: (a) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in his possession or lawfully under his control; or (b) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm. (2) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. [b]Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms.[/b] I added the emphasis to the last line. The letter of the law is quite clear, especially in the last sentence. While you can argue that the "intent" of the law is to prevent localities from imposing "more" restrictions on individuals, that is a trick that the anti's usually play on us. We should not resort to it. The plain letter of the law should be its binding meaning, not what people with agendas can read into it. Having said that, there may well be another section of the state code that "specifically authorizes" cities to maintain local citizen militias and posses, and to provide for the same. If there isn't such a section, the city is out of luck. [Edited to fix the link]
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 3:49:52 PM EDT
That is a state pre-emption law. They were passed to prevent local governments from creating patchworks of gun laws (gun and ammo bans) throughout the state. In crappy states like kalifornia, some cities completely ignore pre-emption and the state attorney general looks the other way letting the laws stand. There wouldn't be ANY need for this type of legislation if govt would just damn follow the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 3:54:33 PM EDT
Has the Utah legislature ratified all the Federal gun laws? It seems to me that ALL gun laws not passed by the legislature are illegal.
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 7:45:38 PM EDT
California has only two appealing qualities: Carmel & Monterey. Other than that, it can fall into the ocean & take all the communists that live there with it. "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H.L. Mencken
Link Posted: 9/5/2001 8:19:02 PM EDT
Why would anyone want mandatory gun ownership? That's as stupid as banning them. Small government is the best government.
Top Top