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 $10 million," Corroon says.
The same debate is being heard on Capitol Hill over the cost and consequences of a series of so-called message bills.
"Those who criticize generally aren't those who represent a group of constituents. For me personally, my constituents are very pleased with the message bills we run," says Senate Majority Leader Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City.
(Excerpt) Read more at ksl.com ...
Remember one of Quinn's laws: Everything before "But" is bull$#!t.
We have them now. It is called the National Guard. National is not quite the proper description since that the Guard is under the control of the State and is made up of State citizens. The Federal Government can activate the guard but it is limited. More of a problem is the hundreds of local police and sheriffs who's loyalty could be more local than under the Governor.
“We have them now. It is called the National Guard”
Absolutely false. The National Guard is a reserve element of the regular Army.
“The Federal Government can activate the guard but it is limited.”
The Federal government can activate the Guard against the wishes of the governor.
“We have them now. It is called the National Guard”
Absolutely false. The National Guard is a reserve element of the regular Army.
“The Federal Government can activate the guard but it is limited.”
The Federal government can activate the Guard against the wishes of the governor.
Not true.
In the book I have, on page three, it lists the officers.
Commander in Chief
Governor JOSIAH W. BEGOLE
And all of the officers listed are Citizens and residents of the State of Michigan
Now it is true that the militia of a state can be called to serve under the Feds.
But that option is reserved to the Governor of the state, not the Feds.
I really appreciate the point they’re making, but the SCOTUS, including Scalia, has already turned the commerce clause on its head, I think most recently in Gonzales v Raisch.
>The Federal government can activate the Guard against the wishes of the governor.<
Can you show me where that is written into law?
Case law. I think the case you want to review is “Perpich v. Department of Defense” from 1989 or 1990 - can’t remember which right now. Perpich was governor of MN, and contested the DOD activating the MN Nat’l Guard against his wishes.
Perpich lost, because (again, this is from my increasingly senior memory) the Guard was organized and is funded by Congress under Article 1, Section 8 powers. That’s the gist of what I remember, anyway.
“Perpich v. Department of Defense”
“John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007” was even more explicit, as it allowed the President to assume command of the Guard deployed within a State, but some of that was repealed.
Careful, that’s “libertarian” talk and folks don’t cotton much to such craziness ‘round here. (/RINO)
Sounds like an idea that is long over due...
What is the value of a life? Protecting Rights and lives is worth the attorney fees.
And a democrat running for guv, so like any democrat he'll lie like a rug about where he stands.
I'm beginning to like Herbert. If he would give a good hearty laugh about Huntsman's "global warming" hysteria and pull Utah out of the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative I could really like him.
A decade or so ago, an old Vet told me that the Nat’l Guard and the Nevada Militia are not the same thing. Do you know anything about this?
Thank you
You are quite welcome.
Not off the top of my head.
A state militia isn’t the same thing as the NG, for those states that have actual state militias.
Is this a trust but verify moment? Or is Corroon one of the good old boys that became a Democrat because he is anti-Mormonism?
Rights if convenient!
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.