Skip to comments.Utah governor: Feds have no right to regulate guns in state
Posted on 02/27/2010 7:33:39 AM PST by marktwain
SALT LAKE CITY -- Gov. Gary Herbert signed a controversial message bill about guns Friday after raising questions just a day before about its cost. His Democratic opponent calls it a mistake that could cost the state millions.
It's called Senate Bill 11. It would exempt Utah from any federal regulations on firearms made and sold within the state.
Thursday, the governor hinted he might veto the bill, due to questions about its constitutionality and the costs of potentially lengthy court fight.
"I don't mind the message. I just don't want to end up having a million dollar cost attached to it, where we have slim chance of winning," Herbert said. "I think we have a slim chance of even getting to the Supreme Court, which is the intent of that particular piece of legislation."
Friday, Herbert signed the bill, saying: "There are times when the state needs to push back against continued encroachment from the federal government." He said he signed the law because it furthers the dialogue without "unduly burdening Utah taxpayers."
But the governor's Democratic opponent, Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon, says with the state facing a $700 million budget deficit, signing the bill was the wrong decision.
"I'm pro-gun. I'm pro-Second Amendment. I'm pro-state sovereignty. But I'm also a fiscal conservative, and I'm concerned that this bill could cost taxpayers up to $10 million," Corroon says.
The same debate is being heard on Capitol Hill over the cost and consequences of a series of so-called message bills.
"Those who criticize generally aren't those who represent a group of constituents. For me personally, my constituents are very pleased with the message bills we run," says Senate Majority Leader Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City.
(Excerpt) Read more at ksl.com ...
Notice, the “costs” to fight the federal government are really attorney fees. What this country really needs is a ferocious house cleaning of trial lawyers.
The $10 million would be well spent. I assume the State would receive a lot of money from outside donors, if necessary.
Right message, right time!
BS. $10 million is chump change and these people know it.
And, compared to the way the state is spending on pure junk, this is money very well spent.
When Bush 1 was in office, a lib I know whined incessently about some $40 mil expenditure the Pubbies did. When Slick Willie was in office he thought the $15 billion midnight basketball bill was just wonderful.
this argument was lost in the 30’s
every little bit helps, but thee commerrce clausee is all pervasive.
I’m wondering if we will ever bring back State Militias.
10 Million Dollars for a States attorney to Square Off with the Federal Government regarding a Question of Constitutionality?
If true, that is a wicked and evil perversion of Justice, our Constitution and Bill of Rights in and of itself.
That’s how it alwasy goes, though. I would have liked to have seen such fiscally-minded Republicans when Bush was spending us down the drain.
Isn’t the National Guard the modern day equivalent? I know that neighbors can band together to form local militias but in terms of tanks, APCs, jets, and proper C&C facilities I thought the Guard in each state was the successor to the militia system?
Already happening. If you’ve time, check out the 1st Tennessee Rifle Unit....
“”I’m pro-gun. I’m pro-Second Amendment. I’m pro-state sovereignty. But I’m also a fiscal conservative, and I’m concerned that this bill could cost taxpayers up to $10 million,” Corroon says.”
Yeah, sure you are.
Not "State Militias".
One of the very few powers the Constitution gives Congress is to pay for and train "the militia". This is separate from the powers listed to raise and maintain the Navy and Army. The Constitutional requirement to have a militia is why we have the National Guard like you said... but not the State Militias.
U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8
Powers of Congress
(Line 15)"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
“Already happening. If youve time, check out the 1st Tennessee Rifle Unit....”
Hey, that’s amazing, two of my granddaddys were in the 1st Tennessee under General Greene. :)
Here is Federal law regarding militias from Revised Statutes of the United States 1873
The decisions of the 1930s are gradually being reversed, so this is a good move.
Commerce clause-creep was halted in the 1990s; now we must undo the damage.
I can think of no better use of taxpayer money than preserving constitutional limits on the federal government.
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.