View Full Version : Utah-House panel advances gun bill

02-08-2010, 1:17 PM

House panel advances gun bill
By Brandon Loomis

The Salt Lake Tribune

Updated: 02/08/2010 12:37:09 PM MST

A bill challenging federal gun laws and asserting states' rights continued to roll through the Utah Legislature on Monday.

Already passed by the Senate, the proposal to exempt from federal control Utah-made guns that don't leave the state glided through a House committee on a nearly unanimous vote.

SB11 now goes to the full House.

"This bill addresses our state's immutable right to establish rules and regulations," said Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, the bill's sponsor.

She acknowledged that precedent-setting cases at the U.S. Supreme Court take a broad view of the federal government's authority over commerce, creating a potentially costly legal fight if the bill passes. But Montana and Tennessee already have passed versions, and Dayton argues a national groundswell, including the Utah measure, will help present a new "emerging consensus" to the court.

"This is not rogue action," she said.

No one from the public or the panel spoke against the bill at Monday's hearing. Only Rep. Phil Riesen, D-Holladay, voted against it.

Senate Democrats previously objected to setting up a potentially expensive legal fight.

Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, said testing the federal government on states' rights, including gun regulation, is important.

"These are absolutely critically important rights to each of us as individuals," Noel said.

Don Peay of Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife said asserting the state's right
to manage its affairs is an economic-development issue and worth investing "some millions" in a legal fight.

Clark Aposhian of the Utah Shooting Sports Council said the bill would not be more lenient on gun owners, because Utah requires background checks for firearm sales.

"This is not about making firearms available to currently restricted persons in any way," he said.


gun toting monkeyboy
02-08-2010, 1:40 PM
I think there are going to be a lot of states going this route. Not just because of guns. But because it is a winnable legal fight that helps them smack down the Federal government. The Feds have gotten entirely too big for their britches over the past 100 years. The backlash is going to be fun to watch.


02-08-2010, 1:46 PM
I wish them all the best of luck. The federal government is way too big and over reaching.

02-08-2010, 1:51 PM

(2) This chapter does not apply to:
123 (a) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
124 (b) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1-1/2 inches and that uses smokeless
125 powder, not black powder, as a propellant;
126 (c) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger
127 or other firing device, other than a shotgun; or

DIY AA-12 anyone? LOL

02-08-2010, 2:20 PM
I wish them all the best of luck. The federal government is way too big and over reaching.

Sure - until someone sells you a product from another state or steals from you in another state and they stand behind the state line and laugh at you.
Or you want a road/rr tracks from one state to another
want interstate mail or commerce
want unanimity of law between states. . .
want retirement, disability, medicare when you turn 65
want safe drugs, want to keep terrorists out of the county (all 50 states)
want a strong military with billion dollar ships and planes
etc. etc.