You see nothing wrong with this, do you? 
Posted on 05/20/2004 6:31:04 PM PDT by Mulder
Gun-rights activists want Utah to dump its concealed-weapons licensing system and make it legal for any adult with a clean criminal record to pack heat in most public places.
"Personally, I think you could do away with the whole permit process and you wouldn't change the environment," National Rifle Association spokesman Brian Judy told lawmakers Wednesday.
"Law-abiding citizens, whether they have a permit or not, are going to be law-abiding citizens . . . [and] criminals are going to ignore the law," Judy said during a meeting of the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee.
A spokesman for Gun Owners of Utah agreed with the push to do away with training and other requirements for obtaining a concealed-carry permit. The Utah Shooting Sports Council and the Utah Self-Defense Instructors Network said they have no formal position on the proposal yet.
But the NRA, which was instrumental in Alaska's decision last year to change its law and allow residents to carry concealed firearms without a permit, carries a lot of weight in the conservative Utah Legislature.
"You have a special interest group that [legislators] bow to," said Marla Kennedy, executive director of the Utah Gun Violence Prevention Center. "And they couldn't be more out of touch with the public."
Public opinion polls have shown a majority of Utahns favor banning guns in public schools, but lawmakers have enacted legislation to give concealed-carry permit holders the right to take weapons into schools and other government and public places.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, is the mastermind of most of Utah's gun legislation in the past eight years, including the 1995 legislation that liberalized the concealed-carry permit standards.
Waddoups said in an interview after the committee hearing that the chance of the state scrapping the permit system in the next legislative session "is almost nil."
"I don't think the public is ready for that type of situation. I think I could go there as long as we had a good background [screening] procedure in place like we do now, but I don't think the public is ready. . . . There needs to be more education before the public would tolerate that."
Judy, who was active in the lobbying effort leading up to Alaska's change of law in June last year, said the success of liberalized concealed-carry laws around the country shows it is time to "reframe the debate" over guns. Instead of paying attention to a handful of gun-control advocates and editorial writers, he said, "the Legislature should look at what they can do to ease the burden" on citizens who want to defend themselves.
Scott Engen, representing Gun Owners of Utah, raised some hackles among lawmakers when he said, "By and large, operating a firearm is not much more complicated than operating a stapler."
Sen. Paula Julander, D-Salt Lake City, protested: "I just have to respectfully disagree with the stapler and the gun analogy. The consequences of [misusing] the two are in no way similar."
Engen said he was talking about the mechanical operation of the devices, not safety issues resulting from misuse.
bang
Imagine Kansas this way.....(sigh)
I see a slippery slope here. Next thing you know, they'll be saying 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' and then where would we be???????
/john
Just goes to show that some Americans still have some good old common sense---let's hope enough of them do to get this passed in Utah---followed by the rest of the states! Gun laws and the fees they cost sure keep a lot of good people from being able to defend themselves!
"they just want to know where they are and who has them."
So when confiscation is ordered they will have a nice neat list of who needs to turn theirs in.
That would be akin to registering Bibles. It's none of the state's business.
You see nothing wrong with this, do you?
Here's a long list why.
1. The 2nd amendment. Shall not be infringed is straight forward.
2. Registration leads to confiscation. California, New York City, Chicago, and Washington DC prove that.
3. Taxes and fees. If guns are registered, if oftentimes costs money to do so. That's on a county level here(Although Livingston is nice and didn't charge me).
4. It doesn't work, nor help. Michigan isn't a low crime paradise, and we have registed pistols here since the 1920's. That was also due to special interest known as the Ku Klux Klan. They pressured the legislature when a black man used a gun in self defense against a Klan Member.
Maybe not, but possesing one in some Muslim countries can get you killed by the state.
It also leads to high violent crime rates because criminals no longer need to fear their victims.
FOR THE RECORD
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1928, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives -- because they were unable to defend their liberty -- at approximately 56 million in the 20th century.
Now...does THAT explain it?
Cause the state can take it away or tax it.
Guns are made for one thing: destroying.
Guns are made to fire a projectile at a target. Same with bows and arrows.
But, the harm done by a gun makes it necessary for people to register them. A bible cannot kill a man.
A. A gun can't do any harm. It just sits there in its box until a person decides to harm another, for good or bad. Knives are the same, as are baseball bats, hockey sticks, bows and arrows, and cans of gasoline.
As for Bibles not killing a man, that's true the same way with guns. However there are bad people who have used the Bible for nefarious purposes. My bloodlines are Irish, and Oliver Cromwell and his people murdered 1/3 of Ireland.
I somehow gotta believe your statements are intended to make this one of those long threads.......kinda like "what kinda gun should I buy" threads....
Man, I would love to pile on but everyone else has already used all the good points.
I do hope you realize you're on slippery ground here.
If cars were currently unregistered, and there was a movement to ban them, and the same people who wanted to ban them also supported registration, what would that make you think of car registration?
If you need to register to ... drive a car... then why not register your gun?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.