Utah Guns Forum banner

New Utah Constitutional Carry Bill

14K views 40 replies 17 participants last post by  Sam Fidler 
#1 ·
#27 ·
Based on what I read on FB posts, I think that people should be required to attend mandatory English language and grammar training before being allowed to exercise their right to free speech. Also, they should be required to attend mandatory sessions on candidates and issues in every election before being allowed to cast a vote.

Ok...those are somewhat snarky analogies, but whenever you add in mandatory requirements in order to exercise a right, it then becomes a privilege. Do we have the "right" to conceal carry in this state? No, as we have to get the state's permission, i.e. a permit, in order to exercise it. I don't need a permit to attend the church of my choice, speak my mind, assemble with my friends in the park, or to exempt my home from warrantless searches. Some of the comments on this thread almost seem that some of you are ok with a "pistol permit" that's issued by the state before you can even buy a pistol, similar to the New York or Massachusetts systems. Is it a good idea for anyone that's going to carry a firearm, whether concealed or open, to learn not only how to use it, but when it's permissible to use it? Of course. But should it be a government imposed requirement? Not if you believe in the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So I say an unqualified YES to constitutional carry.
 
#28 ·
ObiRich said:
Based on what I read on FB posts, I think that people should be required to attend mandatory English language and grammar training before being allowed to exercise their right to free speech. Also, they should be required to attend mandatory sessions on candidates and issues in every election before being allowed to cast a vote.

Ok...those are somewhat snarky analogies, but whenever you add in mandatory requirements in order to exercise a right, it then becomes a privilege. Do we have the "right" to conceal carry in this state? No, as we have to get the state's permission, i.e. a permit, in order to exercise it. I don't need a permit to attend the church of my choice, speak my mind, assemble with my friends in the park, or to exempt my home from warrantless searches. Some of the comments on this thread almost seem that some of you are ok with a "pistol permit" that's issued by the state before you can even buy a pistol, similar to the New York or Massachusetts systems. Is it a good idea for anyone that's going to carry a firearm, whether concealed or open, to learn not only how to use it, but when it's permissible to use it? Of course. But should it be a government imposed requirement? Not if you believe in the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So I say an unqualified YES to constitutional carry.
Oh, but education is mandatory in our country. You can't force people to remember or use what they've learned however. And while not mandatory, there are usually sufficient opportunities to learn about the candidates and issues prior to an election. Those being an example of not mandatory training, not being taken advantage of. I'm not so sure that an IQ test wouldn't be a good requirement before being to allow to post to social media. I have friends that fall prey to every scam that is posted. If not an IQ test, then at least a reverse image of the word gullible tattooed on their forehead so when they look in the mirror, they are reminded not to post stupid stuff.

Yes those are sarcastic replies to your snarky examples, sorry that I'm incapable of responding to the requirement to use sarcastic fonts on this forum, perhaps I should be banned, or forced to attend mandatory training.

On a more serious note however, I said up front, that I do and would support constitutional carry. I would never, in a more public forum even suggest such reservations. But I think it's a healthy debate, food for thought, and has made for some interesting conversations and points of view. And I think this is the appropriate place for such conversations to take place in. I won't dignify the gun grabbers arguments about the wording or intent of the second amendment, or the complete disregard by the president of other aspects of the constitution.

Yes, I support the constitutional RsKBA and would vote for it both locally and nationally without reservations. That doesn't mean that I don't have private concerns about an uptick in mistakes being made by clueless people being armed for the first time. I think would then become matter of society as a whole to at least offer safe handling training along with honoring that right.

Do I believe that mandatory or voluntary training either one would put a stop to stupid mistakes? Of course not. No more than mandatory eduction puts a stop to stupidly on social media.But I shudder to think what FB would be like without it.

In short, I think it's a healthy discussion for us to have, here among us. When it comes to public forums I'll stand proudly along side you and with no reservations support constitutional carry, as well as condemn all forms of government infringement upon our constitutional rights.

Mel
 
#30 ·
RoccoRacer said:
Creek said:
I've come to loathe the words "common sense".
I'm offended that they think open carry is offensive. [logical conclusions since they say concealed is more polite]
:agree: +1... either offensive or impolite... either way it is illogical reasoning on their part.
 
#31 ·
Uinta Firearms said:
I worry that it'll cause us to lose some states, like Michigan, Colorado, and Pennsylvania, in regards to reciprocity. However, I'm unequivocally in favor of constitutional carry.
My first concern is my right as a Utah resident, carrying in Utah, other states be what they may. Reciprocity comes and goes without much logic behind it. I'm in favor of Constitutional Carry.
 
#32 ·
bagpiper said:
A bill and sponsor are in the works.
But now is a great time to congratulate that legislative candidate you helped win his race and put a bug in his ear about how it is time to take the next step on more fully respecting RsKBA.
Charles
:agree: Keep them reminded of the reason(s) that you voted for them!!!
 
#33 ·
J_dazzle23 said:
While I agree that you should take upon yourself the responsibility of being proficient with the battery of arms you choose to carry, I simply do not believe you can legislate personal responsibility. Every single accident that could be had with a firearm(that I can think of) already is illegal. For example the lady that killed a toilet in a school (LOL).

I get what you are saying, and in theory I agree with everyone being proficient with their firearm, but I know that there is no way to enforce this without infringing on personal rights. (That I can think of, anyway)

I guess what I am getting likely puts us in the same boat. In theory, it would be nice, but i don't trust anyone, especially not the government to regulate this.

Right now, there are people who teach that western medicine is completely bunk, and have HUGE followings. This results in people dying from diseases by the thousands that they wouldn't have died from. This has a huge impact on our society. For the greater good, we could make them take some immunology and physiology classes before they get to spout their nonsense, but that would a violation of rights. I view this no differently, honestly.

Great in theory, but I just don't think you can legislate common sense.
:agree:
The quandary is the number or irresponsible that for lack of a single incident involving a firearm are now free to wander aimlessly will stroking the "Power" in their pocket, tucked in their belt, or stuffed in their lunchbox. I fear that there may be an incident or two that will raise this issue, if passed, back into the public scrutiny, where the legislative arm may swing back in the wrong direction and not stop where it was before.
:disgusted:
 
#35 ·
dewittdj said:
Uinta Firearms said:
I worry that it'll cause us to lose some states, like Michigan, Colorado, and Pennsylvania, in regards to reciprocity. However, I'm unequivocally in favor of constitutional carry.
My first concern is my right as a Utah resident, carrying in Utah, other states be what they may. Reciprocity comes and goes without much logic behind it. I'm in favor of Constitutional Carry.
I'm a tax paying Utah resident who hasn't occupied a home in Utah since 2009. Reciprocity is a huge deal for me. I was in Virginia for 3 years. I was good there. I'm currently living in Chicagoland. It's a no go. Next stop appears to be Philadelphia. As a resident I'm good there.

How do I get to do this? First, I served in the Marines. Now, I serve as a Navy spouse.
 
#36 ·
dewittdj said:
JoeSparky said:
Quychang, et.al.
Education in this country is NOT mandatory! Attendance Is!
Imagine if it was... well, there goes all of those "trophies for just competing" and those diplomas for just attending...
I won't argue the point, except to say that if you do attend, enough to pass, you're bound to absorb at least a little bit. If only by osmosis, or sleep learning by your subconscious mind. Heck I graduated with better than a 3.0 and carried a 4.0 my senior year just to prove I could have done so the rest of the time had I cared enough to try. And while it does surprise me sometimes how much I remember after so many years, I can still honestly say most of what I know comes from independent study as an adult.

Mel
 
#37 ·
dewittdj said:
J_dazzle23 said:
While I agree that you should take upon yourself the responsibility of being proficient with the battery of arms you choose to carry, I simply do not believe you can legislate personal responsibility. Every single accident that could be had with a firearm(that I can think of) already is illegal. For example the lady that killed a toilet in a school (LOL).

I get what you are saying, and in theory I agree with everyone being proficient with their firearm, but I know that there is no way to enforce this without infringing on personal rights. (That I can think of, anyway)

I guess what I am getting likely puts us in the same boat. In theory, it would be nice, but i don't trust anyone, especially not the government to regulate this.

Right now, there are people who teach that western medicine is completely bunk, and have HUGE followings. This results in people dying from diseases by the thousands that they wouldn't have died from. This has a huge impact on our society. For the greater good, we could make them take some immunology and physiology classes before they get to spout their nonsense, but that would a violation of rights. I view this no differently, honestly.

Great in theory, but I just don't think you can legislate common sense.
:agree:
The quandary is the number or irresponsible that for lack of a single incident involving a firearm are now free to wander aimlessly will stroking the "Power" in their pocket, tucked in their belt, or stuffed in their lunchbox. I fear that there may be an incident or two that will raise this issue, if passed, back into the public scrutiny, where the legislative arm may swing back in the wrong direction and not stop where it was before.
:disgusted:
I agree, that is a realistic and legitimate concern.
 
#38 ·
quychang said:
Oh, but education is mandatory in our country. You can't force people to remember or use what they've learned however. And while not mandatory, there are usually sufficient opportunities to learn about the candidates and issues prior to an election. Those being an example of not mandatory training, not being taken advantage of

.....

In short, I think it's a healthy discussion for us to have, here among us. When it comes to public forums I'll stand proudly along side you and with no reservations support constitutional carry, as well as condemn all forms of government infringement upon our constitutional rights.
I've not added anything to this thread for several days for lack of anything worthwhile to add, even as I've greatly enjoyed reading and pondering what others have written. I've though seriously about what has been written. I've considered on how we might encourage folks to get trained but without infringing their enumerated, constitutional and natural/God-given rights. I've thought about the Viper example and wondered about some kind of improved liability protection if someone can show training.

But I think in this post Mel reminds me of something I've forgotten. We the people have the right to own and carry firearms. The federal government has the delegated constitutional authority and responsibility to prescribe the appropriate training for the militia. Most (all?) States including Utah have constitutional or at least statutory authority and responsibility to provide education to all youngsters in the borders.

The answer to the problem escaped me because of my natural conservative/libertarian desire for limited government. I forgot that there are some things that are the proper purview of government. And basic firearms safety, usage, and I'd say legal training are clearly in that group of things specifically delegated to government right along with national defense, honest money and weights and measures, and guaranteeing every State a republican form of government and every citizen his rights under the constitution.

Firearms training needs to be as common in public/government schools as math (hopefully a better curriculum that often, currently used for math), science, history, and english.

I suppose if someone wishes to opt out their children for sincere religious objections or some disability, that would have to be permitted. But otherwise, a regular and mandatory part of getting a diploma just like PE, learning about evolution and cosmology, and demonstrating some minimal proficiency with arithmetic and basic algebra.

We have the right to own and carry firearms, and we've delegated to government the responsibility to make sure that the general public (the militia) has some basic training in firearms usage and safety. We just need to demand that government do its job properly just as some had to demand it provide proper education to racial minorities.

My thanks, Mel, for reminding me of this.

Charles
 
#39 ·
dewittdj said:
JoeSparky said:
Quychang, et.al.
Education in this country is NOT mandatory! Attendance Is!
Imagine if it was... well, there goes all of those "trophies for just competing" and those diplomas for just attending...
Nothing in the law requiring graduation either.... just to attend until a specific age or parental consent allowing one to not attend anymore.
 
#40 ·
JoeSparky said:
Nothing in the law requiring graduation either.... just to attend until a specific age or parental consent allowing one to not attend anymore.
You're right Joe, nothing requires graduating, or to put a fine point on it, education. The law does make it mandatory for that education to be made available to all. We can debate the quality of the curriculum or proof of actually assimilating that education in another thread. I have reservations on both issues, but, I agree with Charles that if we're going to require actual training for the militia, school would be the natural place to put it. And it would be the one place where attendance could be mandatory. Again, if a child has the mindset that you can make me be here, but you can't make me learn, then that training is not going to be effective. But honestly that's a smaller percentage of students than you give credit for. Again, I'll admit it's both a vocal, and disruptive group that causes headaches for teachers, and no doubt lowers the overall education received by all students. But hey, even the gang bangers and wanna bees might show interest in gun related training. For the wrong reasons perhaps, but still. If you can grab their interest anywhere in the educational process, some of that will carry over to other subjects.

They already allow ROTC to substituted for the PE requirement. And at least army ROTC students receive gun related training. I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to allow advanced gun related training to substitute for PE. Particularly if the school has a shooting range on campus. It's been many years since I attended but at the time, both Ben Lomand High and Ogden High had ROTC shooting ranges, and teams that participated in shooting matches between the local ROTC departments. All cadets had to show at least basic proficiency with a rifle, in multiple shooting stances. We officers often took advantage of the range before or after school, sometimes even during class time, to get in an hour of range time. So even in this politically correct era, the idea isn't so far fetched.

I, for one, would love to see the idea explored and improved upon. It certainly beats any other ideas i've seen advanced.

Mel
 
#41 ·
dewittdj said:
I fear that there may be an incident or two that will raise this issue, if passed, back into the public scrutiny, where the legislative arm may swing back in the wrong direction and not stop where it was before.
:disgusted:
With that line of thinking, I would never get out of bed in the morning. Should we avoid trying because someone might fail? Do we not exercise our rights because others may abuse theirs? If we don't take advantage of the political swing toward individual liberty whenever available then we must accept the never ending assault on our freedoms as a natural end to a once great nation.

I will fight for every inch of freedom we can reclaim and will stand firmly on that ground and fight to maintain it. To not fight for freedom today because we may lose ground tomorrow is not a concept I accept in myself and, frankly, one I despise in others.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top