CSNbbs

Full Version: Utah Joins Montana as lawmakers pass gun regulation exemption bill
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Coming soon to Texas

Utah lawmakers pass gun regulation exemption bill

February 10th, 2010 @ 8:34pm
By Joseph Freeman, AP writer

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Guns made and kept in Utah would be exempt from federal regulations under a measure passed by the Utah Legislature Wednesday, despite concerns over an expensive legal fight at a time when the budget is already stretched thin.

Senate Bill 11 was passed by the Utah House 56-17.

The proposal mirrors one Montana signed into law last year that's intended to trigger a federal court battle. The measures would allow guns made in the respective states to be exempt from federal gun registration rules like background checks and dealer-licensing.

The goal is to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, the legal basis for most gun regulation in the U.S.

In the process, it could lead to small arms dealers in the state operating with little to no oversight.

Sen. Margaret Dayton, an Orem Republican, has said her bill is part of a broader effort to send a message to Congress that the federal government is overstepping its bounds.

Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, said the bill isn't just about guns. It's also about state's rights, he said.

The House sponsor of the proposal, Sandstrom said other states have similar bills in the works and he's been speaking with legislators across the nation who are actively involved.

The bill now goes to Utah Gov. Gary Herbert. Spokeswoman Angie Welling said Herbert supports legislative efforts to reaffirm states' rights, but is concerned about the possible legal costs that would go with constitutional challenges.

One thing that Sandstrom wants the governor to keep in mind is the popular support he says he's seen for the legislation.

"I think the governor better think long and hard about this bill because I don't think he truly understands the depth and commitment that people have in this state to seeing it going forward," he said.

Democratic lawmakers urged the House Wednesday to vote against the measure on both fiscal and constitutional grounds.

They argued that Utah's expected $700 million budget shortfall in 2011 should make the state uncomfortable about possibly getting roped into a pricey legal battle.

"I'm looking at our budget for next year and the drastic disabling cuts," Rep. Christine Johnson, D-Salt Lake City, said. "I think it's advantageous to allow Montana to be the laboratory for this experiment."

That process has already begun.

The Department of Justice, in a brief filed last month, asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed last year by gun advocates in Montana who argued the state should decide which rules, if any, would control the sale and purchase of guns and paraphernalia made in Montana.

The brief said the 1934 National Firearms Act was first put in place to regulate guns that could be "used readily and efficiently by criminals or gangsters."

Congress followed it in 1968 with a gun control act aimed at decreasing serious crime, and further strengthened its control over interstate commerce, the brief said.

Those laws and others all mean to keep tabs on guns that easily pass between state borders, the Justice Department argued.

Rep. Brian King pointed to the legal advice included in the bill that it "is highly likely to be held unconstitutional."

"This is madness," the Salt Lake City Democrat said. "I don't think this is a close call."

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press
I just went back and re-read that Constitution thingy...looks like firearms are already exempt from federal regulation. Wait, let me read it one more time....yep, looks like they're exempt.

Anyway, I like Utah's gumption.
Well NC now has a rule where pistols don't need a permit or that 10 day wait anymore.
(02-14-2010 12:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]Well NC now has a rule where pistols don't need a permit or that 10 day wait anymore.

What about a background check?
I actually think that there aren't any. That doesn't apply to shot guns and other things
(02-14-2010 01:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]I actually think that there aren't any. That doesn't apply to shot guns and other things

Maybe you should read about the current "pistol" laws. There are Instant Background Checks, if you are not a felon, underage, mental or wanted, you don't have to wait. When the system is not working, sometimes people do have to wait 10 days for a rejection.

NORTH CAROLINA FIREARMS LAWS in PDF

Rebel

(02-14-2010 04:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 01:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]I actually think that there aren't any. That doesn't apply to shot guns and other things

Maybe you should read about the current "pistol" laws. There are Instant Background Checks, if you are not a felon, underage, mental or wanted, you don't have to wait. When the system is not working, sometimes people do have to wait 10 days for a rejection.

NORTH CAROLINA FIREARMS LAWS in PDF

Same in Georgia. However, I've since gone "underground". I don't want the people who would circumvent my constitutional right to know what I have. It's not their business.
(02-14-2010 05:36 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 04:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 01:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]I actually think that there aren't any. That doesn't apply to shot guns and other things

Maybe you should read about the current "pistol" laws. There are Instant Background Checks, if you are not a felon, underage, mental or wanted, you don't have to wait. When the system is not working, sometimes people do have to wait 10 days for a rejection.

NORTH CAROLINA FIREARMS LAWS in PDF

Same in Georgia. However, I've since gone "underground". I don't want the people who would circumvent my constitutional right to know what I have. It's not their business.
Wonderful. Mr. Violence himself(you) has a gun(s) that he bought on the blackmarket. I would imagine it is likely because your mental history would preclude you from owning one if you had to get a background check. THis is why there are so many gun deaths in this country. If the NRA nutcases(you) would just calm down and realize that the government isn't going to take away the guns you purchased legally(ie. had a background check). It is just paranoia and fear.
There are no laws on the books that prevent any man who is entitled to sell his property (guns) to any other man without any record except a bill of sale. I am more concerned about Roberta acquiring weapons than Reb.

States require residency to purchase whereas active military can purchase in all 50, or 57 if your Obama.
He said nothing about the black market. It's perfectly legal to bye from individuals. He has bought guns and passed all the checks before, he just isn't doing it any longer. He explained why. And, once again for the slow-pokes, criminals don't care about background checks and other such hindrance's to law abiding Americans.

And tell the rest of the world who have had their guns confiscated about your little paranoia idea.
BTW, can anyone tell me if Obama has ever explained why he gaffed 57 states, you know being the intellectual genius and powerhouse that everyone unwitting claims he is.
(02-14-2010 07:36 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, can anyone tell me if Obama has ever explained why he gaffed 57 states, you know being the intellectual genius and powerhouse that everyone unwitting claims he is.
I would guess he was including Puerto Rico and other US territories but made the mistake saying only states versus states and territories.
So how many states and territories are there?
(02-14-2010 07:59 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 07:47 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 07:36 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, can anyone tell me if Obama has ever explained why he gaffed 57 states, you know being the intellectual genius and powerhouse that everyone unwitting claims he is.
I would guess he was including Puerto Rico and other US territories but made the mistake saying only states versus states and territories.
So how many states and territories are there?

Yea Roberta, How many? This should be good.
(02-14-2010 08:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 07:59 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 07:47 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 07:36 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, can anyone tell me if Obama has ever explained why he gaffed 57 states, you know being the intellectual genius and powerhouse that everyone unwitting claims he is.
I would guess he was including Puerto Rico and other US territories but made the mistake saying only states versus states and territories.
So how many states and territories are there?

Yea Roberta, How many? This should be good.

That seems to have shut him up for the day. 03-nutkick
(02-14-2010 10:21 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 08:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 07:59 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 07:47 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 07:36 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, can anyone tell me if Obama has ever explained why he gaffed 57 states, you know being the intellectual genius and powerhouse that everyone unwitting claims he is.
I would guess he was including Puerto Rico and other US territories but made the mistake saying only states versus states and territories.
So how many states and territories are there?

Yea Roberta, How many? This should be good.

That seems to have shut him up for the day. 03-nutkick
It shut me up because I left the board for a while doing other things. As for the answer, I just looked it up. Looks like 50 states. 6 territories and 1 DC. THat equals 57. :)
(02-14-2010 11:26 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 10:21 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 08:09 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 07:59 PM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 07:47 PM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 07:36 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, can anyone tell me if Obama has ever explained why he gaffed 57 states, you know being the intellectual genius and powerhouse that everyone unwitting claims he is.
I would guess he was including Puerto Rico and other US territories but made the mistake saying only states versus states and territories.
So how many states and territories are there?

Yea Roberta, How many? This should be good.

That seems to have shut him up for the day. 03-nutkick
It shut me up because I left the board for a while doing other things. As for the answer, I just looked it up. Looks like 50 states. 6 territories and 1 DC. THat equals 57. :)

Your trying real hard little fellow, throwing DC in there.

Which of these are you not counting?
American Samoa
Baker Island
Guam
Howland Island
Jarvis Island
Johnston Atoll
Kingman Reef
Midway Islands
Navassa Island
Palmyra Atoll
Northern Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Wake Island
Virgin Islands
Guantanamo Bay
Plus military bases and U.S. flag vessels at sea.

By the way, he said:

Quote:"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
So, you see he visited 57 plus had one to go making it 58. Never mind he said he had one to go and said Alaska and Hawaii which would be two, and never mind he HAD most definitely been to Hawaii.

And why are you trying to defend this anyway? He admitted he mis-spoke.
Quote:At a later stop Obama was talking with reporters and expressed concern he'd also mis-stated the number of potential cyclone victims in Burma. He said, ""I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It's a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh." At that point, an aide cut him off and ushered journalists out. Before he could mis-speak again?

Just like global warming "scientist" admitting their mistakes and you go right on blindly defending their mistakes.
(02-14-2010 04:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-14-2010 01:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote: [ -> ]I actually think that there aren't any. That doesn't apply to shot guns and other things

Maybe you should read about the current "pistol" laws. There are Instant Background Checks, if you are not a felon, underage, mental or wanted, you don't have to wait. When the system is not working, sometimes people do have to wait 10 days for a rejection.

NORTH CAROLINA FIREARMS LAWS in PDF

What I actually saw was a bill. By a news story that I heard that it had been enacted but it's just referred to committee, my fault.
(02-14-2010 05:36 PM)Rebel Wrote: [ -> ]Same in Georgia. However, I've since gone "underground". I don't want the people who would circumvent my constitutional right to know what I have. It's not their business.

You and I need to talk. One of my first orders of business after I graduate in May is to get a pistol and preferably concealed carry. Was considering a Glock strongly. Want a simple, reliable, light handgun with high capacity clip and high versatility. Then I'd want to get a shotgun with slugs and birdshot if I needed to get serious about stopping power.
(02-15-2010 12:15 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]preferably concealed carry.

HA! South Carolina requires prints. The government cannot have my biometrics. **** that.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's