Utah Valley Gun Show

[rpyne]

What is most interesting about this gun show and their rules is that this show is sponsored and operated by Utah Valley Convention Center which is an agency of Utah County.

Do you have a source to support this assertion? The ad in the link in the OP just lists the Daily Herald as the sponsor and http://www.utahvalleyguns.com doesn't have anything on their site to suggest involvement by a government agency. Is there additional advertising or documentation that indicates the Utah Valley Convention Center is doing other than renting/leasing the facility to a group?

My source is the Utah County Clerk/Auditor, the Utah County Sheriff, and several staff members at the show. While the advertising says "sponsored by" the Daily Herald, several pieces of advertising also listed an advertising company as a sponsor, as well as the Utah Valley Convention Center, which is an agency of Utah County.

[rpyne]

I wasn't aware the show was being run by a government agency. And as much as I love guns and RKBA, my first question would why any agency of government is competing with private business by running a gun show? Unless we have decided to get serious about mustering out the militia and the government is going to take an active hand in making sure they are armed, I think this falls outside the proper role of government.

So does running a convention center fall outside the proper role of government, but they have never let that get in the way. The contractor that operates the Convention Center on behalf of Utah County thought it would be a good way to bring more business, and hence revenue, to the Convention Center.

That said, let me speak heresy here. If it is deemed proper for a government agency to run a gun show, I'll be the first in line to support a specific, legislative exemption to allow that government agency to regulate guns at the gun show, as long as there are not criminal penalties for violating the rules. IE, absent an injury the worst penalty is being booted from the show if you are discovered.

It is said that when the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts are not on your side, pound the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table.

What I have repeatedly written here about gun shows being unique environments that justify some special rules for guns makes enough sense to me that if government agencies are actually going to run gun shows, I'll support a change in the law to permit those agencies to do what a private show can do today relative to restricting loaded guns inside the show.

Obviously, until the law is changed, everyone should obey it.

If you can make an exception for a gun show, you can find justification for any exception you want. Principles don't have exceptions.

[bagpiper]

If you can make an exception for a gun show, you can find justification for any exception you want. Principles don't have exceptions.

And the principle here is that exceptional circumstances justify and require some exceptional rules. When you can show me any other venue where it is legally and socially acceptable to handle, work the actions on, and sight firearms--often without any chance of not violating the rules about not pointing at anything you don't want to destroy and having a solid backstop--we may well find another exceptional circumstance where exceptional rules are warranted.

Until then....well, there is a reason that "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.

Or in other words, I'm still waiting for someone to credibly tell me that they expect they would react the same way to drawn gun on the milk aisle in Harmons as they do to seeing guns drawn, sighted, and the actions worked at a gun show.

Charles

[rpyne]

And the principle here is that exceptional circumstances justify and require some exceptional rules. When you can show me any other venue where it is legally and socially acceptable to handle, work the actions on, and sight firearms--often without any chance of not violating the rules about not pointing at anything you don't want to destroy and having a solid backstop--we may well find another exceptional circumstance where exceptional rules are warranted.

Until then....well, there is a reason that "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.

Or in other words, I'm still waiting for someone to credibly tell me that they expect they would react the same way to drawn gun on the milk aisle in Harmons as they do to seeing guns drawn, sighted, and the actions worked at a gun show.

We have to agree to disagree on this one. Unless rights are absolute they cease to exist.

[Car Knocker]

rpyne, thank you for the additional info.

[bagpiper]

We have to agree to disagree on this one. Unless rights are absolute they cease to exist.

Demonstrably false.

My right to practice my religion is subject to various restrictions including no human sacrifice (even if the sacrifice is willing). Yet the right remains functionally intact.

Even as my RKBA is subject to numerous unnecessary and unconstitutional restrictions, it has gained additional statutory respect over the last two decades. It has grown, not diminished. It is simply beyond silly to suggest that banning private firearms from inside jails and prisons somehow threatens the RKBA.

The problem with absolute statements is that it is often so easy to find counter-examples simply by looking for some not-so-difficult extremes.

Charles