[DrumJunkie]

Originally Posted by Mosin

And it's Utah, we'll see where the law goes. They can introduce any law they want.

In fact, I'm writing my rep to introduce a bill entitled "The absolute best bill for impoverished African American youth, gang prevention, funding for medicine for the poor, elderly and womens domestic abuse shelters, and feeding of neglected animals welfare bill."

The bill will be 10 pages of legalese, with provisions for $10 USD for the aformentioned programs, but will also include numerous pro-gun laws inside it.


I fully intend for this bill to be shut down by the house democrats, but I will forever point out that the democrats rejected the "The absolute best bill for impoverished African American youth, gang prevention, funding for medicine for the poor, elderly and womens domestic abuse shelters, and feeding of neglected animals welfare bill."

Do it! I dares ya!
And somehow this HAS to make the news....well..WE know better. But still...

[clr8ter]

Looks like Winds-Of-Change was wrong, it hasn't run it's course......

Vikingdad, I still agree with you.

[nitestalker]

The law as reported on TV news is different than the news paper reports.

[Shade]

http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_3524.shtml

They can pass the law but if it is not enforced what does it matter.

Just look at the feds on illegal aliens.

[Vikingdad]

Originally Posted by nitestalker

The law as reported on TV news is different than the news paper reports.

Could you provide whatever you can find? I did find this today; http://www.ksl.com/?nid=757&sid=23823168 whein it says the following:

Ray said a provision in his bill would be included so that individuals who elicit fear in the public could still be cited for disorderly conduct.

"If you do something like that and cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety or the safety of others, you can be cited for disorderly conduct," he said. "Had he caused a major incident at the mall just by carrying that in — multiple calls to 911, a mass exit of a store and commotions like that — is clarified now that law enforcement can cite them for disorderly conduct."

And I think that this is not an unreasonable clarification. I think the problem that we had here in CA was that the open carry activists were carrying into circumstances and environments where there was no real purpose for it in a political and social environment that has a deeply seated fear of the appearance of a firearm. This is vaguely akin to yelling "Fire!" in a theater.
Granted, the dynamics in other states are not like what they are here, but the fact is that nerves are raw from the shooting now. The time is not right for this type of activism. I still maintain that what these people are doing by open carrying in the mall or whatever is not doing us any good.

[Vikingdad]

Originally Posted by Shade

http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_3524.shtml

They can pass the law but if it is not enforced what does it matter.

Just look at the feds on illegal aliens.

The open carry issue is (currently) a state issue, not Federal. The letter signed by all but the Salt Lake County Sheriff in Utah was regarding future federal laws that might infringe on the 2A. If the Feds pass a national policy regarding carry (open or concealed) it would predictably be more restrictive than most state laws, which then would be a problem for those states which have more liberal carry laws.

[blucoondawg]

Originally Posted by Vikingdad

And I think that this is not an unreasonable clarification. I think the problem that we had here in CA was that the open carry activists were carrying into circumstances and environments where there was no real purpose for it in a political and social environment that has a deeply seated fear of the appearance of a firearm. This is vaguely akin to yelling "Fire!" in a theater.

I for one would not support any law which allows a LEO or a chicken$hit liberal citizen to dictate to a law abiding citizen when it is and isn't appropriate to carry their gun or when they do or don't have a reason to carry their gun. I agree some of this sort of thing is definitely a stupid move to make but if you go allowing police that sort of power to dictate who can carry when then what is the point of allowing carry at all? This power would be abused by many law enforcement organizations, it gives liberal police and their superiors the ability to limit 2A without any question. If the cops here in WI had that ability NOBODY would be carrying they would all be getting arrested even if they were doing it for a "good reason". Here many businesses have a sign, NO WEAPONS, that is their right to post that sign, if they don't then their business is open to carry. My reason is "because I can" and that's the only reason anyone should need.

The public needs to be educated that carrying doesn't meant the carrier is a criminal, maybe if the media would report law abiding citizens stopping crimes instead of only reporting mass murders people wouldn't feel this way to start with.

Unreasonable fear by uninformed people is not a reason to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

[4sig]

Originally Posted by nitestalker

Last week 2 men made news in Utah an open carry state. These gun owners walked thru the New Gate Mall in Ogden, Utah with AR-15 rifles. This has caused a push back from many citizens.
A Bill has been rammed into the state house making open carry illegal if some one complains. It appears that it will pass and be signed into law.

So you're doing something legal and the instant someone complains then you've broken a law? Does this make sense to anyone?

[dog2000tj]

Originally Posted by 4sig

So you're doing something legal and the instant someone complains then you've broken a law? Does this make sense to anyone?

Californians

[JTJ]

Originally Posted by dog2000tj

Californians

They are known as Kalibanners and it is the Peoples Republik of Kalifornistan.