92 Responses to:
NO MORE UTAH PISTOL PERMITS

# 1. 5/21/04 12:22 AM by Lee Shumway - Syracuse, Utah
I approve of the sentiment, but anyone that carries concealed without knowing what the law says about *when* you may shoot is as foolish as letting someone drive without knowing what a traffic light means.

What we *could* do is to make a high school elective course to teach younger folks the ins and outs of the law, and they decide if they wish to carry when they reach legal age.

I would hate to see folks on the street packing without knowing what they're up against as an armed citizen.

# 2. 5/21/04 12:32 AM by CW - Williamson, NY
Actually, don't people need things like parade permits or something like that in order to have peaceful demonstrations? Talking about New York State, here.

Trouble with no handgun permits required is that you weed need "nut control" instead of "gun control".

Hey isn't there something in NYS about our governor wanting to change to 5-year handgun permits at $100 for every 5 years?

Once again, upstate Mew York takes it in the keester.

# 3. 5/21/04 12:36 AM by CAROLE - BLOOMFIELD,NY
Same crap in New York and many other states as well

# 4. 5/21/04 12:58 AM by Lew Marchant - Kamas, Utah
Bob, You are right on with this one. Thanks for being a true conservative.

# 5. 5/21/04 1:33 AM by observer
Contrary to widespread predictions of mayhem, violence, and streets awash with blood whenever gun restrictions are eased, the opposite occurs. The crime rate goes down because, overwhelmingly, those who chose to possess or carry firearms realize their devastating potential if misused.. In fact the record shows that police abuse firearms at a higher rate than civilians.

There will always be some abuse on both sides regardless of ownership restrictions. Two arguments end - or should end - the discussion: the Second Amendment and the fact that police protection when needed is not always on scene. Protection often depends upon self.

There is an old saw about what might happen if a weapon were used and then that use had to be defended. The punchline: "It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

Being right and dead is little consolation.

Polititians tout gun laws because they are a sensitive public relations issue and when in place decrease individual power and increase the state's.

The authors of the Constitution had the foresight to include amendments practicable - and just as necessary - two centuries later. It is to our detriment if they go defenceless.

# 6. 5/21/04 2:01 AM by Mr. Venom - Rochester NY
All of our so-called "rights" have been seriously eroded. But don't dare demand those rights, or the gendarmes will show up to take you away. People forget that jerks like Hitler, Mussolini, and Saddam came to power by taking such rights away from them. Government bureaucrats circumvent our constitutional "rights" by changing them to "privileges". Sounds like one big prison yard now, doesn't it? The DMV gets around respecting people's rights by telling them that driving is a privilege, and not a right. "Gun control" is just another method of mind-control. The mandated 55 mph national speed limit was one of the biggest mind-control experiments ever undertaken in this country. So-called "environmental recycling" is another mind-control technique. $4 per gallon milk and $3 per gallon gas is a conditioning technique to see how far big government can go. The oil companies made record profits selling gas at 50 cents a gallon, paying $18 a barrel for the oil. So if oil is $36 a barrel, then what should the gas be? You do the math. As an old friend used to say: "It does not compute!" and "Danger, Will Robinson!". Without the right to bear arms, our liberties don't have a snowball's chance in hell. The bureaucrats would have you believe that everyone will go "postal", and that all our schools will turn into "Columbines". Don't believe 'em!

# 7. 5/21/04 6:50 AM by Tom Dey
Hear me out, I'm serious. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." My (unabridged) dictionary defines abridged as "deprived, diminished, curtailed." That's clear as the Liberty Bell's last toll. Its genius anticipates the recognizes what governments gone sour first do - disarm the citizens...before further repressing them. Absolutely unconstitutional, in red, white and blue. Concealed, hip-holstered or snuggling the thigh for the ladies are all rights...and so are you.

# 8. 5/21/04 6:54 AM by Ron Wakefield - Kenmore, NY
The recent MA marriage situation has interesting implications for the Second amendment.

Some activist sorts are arguing that because of the Federal Constitution saying that licenses issued in one state must be honored in all others, Mass marriages must be accepted in all places.

Seems to me that by the same argument, you could go to a more liberal state, e.g. PA, get your carry permit, and then NY would have to honor it.

# 9. 5/21/04 6:57 AM by Todd - Henrietta, NY
I am not totally sure how I feel about this one Bob. I am all for the Second Amendment. As Robin Williams once said, "You have the right to bear arms, and you have the right to arm bears, whatever you want to do." Actually, I do believe totally in the right to bear arms. Being that it is in the Constitution, I don't understand how anyone can be against it. However, I also believe we need to do things in order to make it as difficult as possible (And even then, not too difficult at all) for the wrong people to get a gun. I believe that once you have committed a felony then you gave up your constitutional rights. I guess what I am saying is that I am all for the Second Amendment, but I think common sense has to come into play as well. Since I don't own a gun, I am not familiar with the process that one has to go through in order to get one.

# 10. 5/21/04 7:19 AM by Greg - Rochester, NY
I think I should be allowed to cary concealed hand grenades. A right is a right is a right.

I don’t understand why some people feel that the “right to bear arms” means they can carry whatever weapon they want, anywhere they want, without registering the weapon with the government.

The constitution is vague about what bearing arms really means. Congress and the states need to regulate what arms we are allowed to bear; otherwise we have a bunch of wackos running around with concealed hand grenades.

You need to take a class to exercise your second amendment, and not to exercise the first amendment. Why you ask? - The first amendment doesn’t come with it a muzzle velocity of a thousand feet per second that can rip through someone’s skin. Guns are dangerous bob, and we need to treat them with respect.

# 11. 5/21/04 7:56 AM by jack
Why stop there, bob? A right to bear arms should mean you can carry a hand gernade.

Editor's Note: and shove it up your ...

# 12. 5/21/04 8:15 AM by gerri - Rochester, NY
You need a license to fish, a license to marry, a license to hunt, a license to practice certain professions, a license to own dogs, a license to drive, a license to cut hair, etc., etc. and yet you think that we don’t need a license to discharge a gun that could potentially maim or kill someone? And you wonder what is wrong with society today? You wonder about violence? Get a grip and screw your head on straight.

# 13. 5/21/04 8:25 AM by A Patriot - Lockport, NY
Local radio interview yesterday with a soldier just back from duty in Iraq. He said the Coalition has allowed the citizenry to keep their privately owned firearms-mostly AK-47s. Seems the 2nd Amendment is alive and well...in Iraq.

# 14. 5/21/04 8:27 AM by Listen to WACK 1420am - Newark, NY
I must be a dishonest conservative, because I interpret the 2nd amendment differently than you. The federal government is forbidden from restricting the right to bear arms by the 2nd amendment to ensure that states of the union can form their own independent militias without federal interference. Individual states can regulate the use of firearms inside their own borders all they want. A state could even ban private citizens from possessing firearms at all if they choose to. I wouldn't worry too much about that in Utah. They just want the revenue from the gun licensing fees.

# 15. 5/21/04 8:32 AM by Mark H - Rochester, NY
Go down to city hall and give back your license. Then go get yourself caught with a gun (you could have all sorts of fun with that, but pick your state carefully). And I'll put in a call to the NRA for you, and we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say about your constitutional rights, I'll even send ya 50 bucks to chip in on layers.

Have fun (I'll keep the number on me).

# 16. 5/21/04 8:35 AM by David - Rochester, NY
In some regards, I agree with you. But without a license, how to you ensure that only adults with a clean records are carrying. Well, on the other hand, how would know if someone without a clean record isn't carrying. I can't say that going through the process to have a license, with a class and background check is a bad thing. But the conditions for grant can't be left up to someone's feelings about the individual. The permit should be issued, unless they can actually find a reason not to, like a criminal record.

The way New York issues permits is a crock of crap. They can turn you down because whoever reviews your case is having a bad day. And then, they want you to specifically list each gun, by serial number on your license. The way it should be done, is you get the license, by default, unless they find something real in your record, like a criminal background. Taking the class means that you have been trained in how to use and when to use the weapon. And you should be able to carry any weapon, once you have the license, not just the ones listed on your license.

I don't know how Utah does their process, but it can't be as bad as around here.

Will requiring licenses stop bad people from having and using guns??? NO!!! It will help put more guns in the hands of trained, law biding citizens so they can better protect themselves. The use of licenses will help the police sort out what is going on when they arrive at the scene.

# 17. 5/21/04 8:47 AM by Leon - Muncie, In
#10..the pen is mightier than the sword! The liberal media is doing more harm to this country than all the "gun nuts" combined.

# 18. 5/21/04 8:55 AM
Its curious how you always come out in strong favor of freedoms that are very deadly to many Americans. From guns to smoking, you rant freedom shall ring in free America. Not a peep about all the thousands of unnecessary deaths these freedoms cause so many, many of Americans.

# 19. 5/21/04 9:01 AM
"How about to exercise your freedom of religion?"

I think all Muslims should have a permit, or a license, to practice their religion in the U.S.

# 20. 5/21/04 9:03 AM by neil - Richmond, VA
Bob,

You are right but where do we draw the line ? A nuclear bomb is an arm, if I could get one would I have the right to keep it - constitutionaly - yes. How about a howitzer and so on, how would you know that I wasn't just going to use as a weapon of terror.

My point is that there is a line that needs to be drawn somewhere. Technology has moved on some what since the constitution was written. It would be best if people for greater access to firearms and people for more gun control got together and spelled out some decent enforcable constitant rules on weapon ownership. That means being practical rules.

Let's have each state pass a firearm bill of responcibility.

High schools should teach a firearm safty course and a hunters safty course.

# 21. 5/21/04 9:03 AM
Main Street in Le Roy, NY has an American flag on every light pole. It looks like its Flag Day every day. Personally, I think such over-exposure of the stars and stripes is desecration of the flag. The image of the flag under such constant view will soon become taken for granted and the flag will lose its special nature. I don't want to see our flag misused like this. Its not a Coca-Cola logo.

Editor's Note: i disagree, moron.

# 22. 5/21/04 9:11 AM by John - Rochester
I love you Bob but I have to disagree on this one. I own a rifle and 3 shotguns but you should get a permit to carry a pistol. I still think people have the right to own them and carry them, it's a minor inconvenience to go get fingerprinted.

# 23. 5/21/04 9:12 AM by Steve
Bob,

This is where the good liberals who have bought into the sheeple lie will say we need nut control and things like that.

Let me tell you I was denied a gun permit here in NY after spending over 100 dollars just to be investigated and because I was still getting divorced when they got around to me 2yrs later and my wife said I would use it to kill myself. I know this because I hired a lawyer to try and help but I gave up after it was starting to cost more money.

To hell with the US, its getting more and more commie everyday.

# 24. 5/21/04 9:14 AM by Chris - Spencerport, NY
I read the column in agreement, but took issue with one thing. Why is this a Utah column? The second amenment should apply throughout the land, and is just as applicable in New York. I know, I know, they're different places. Utah has desert and a big salt lake. New York has maple trees, dairy cows, and lots of pansy liberals who don't like guns.....

# 25. 5/21/04 9:15 AM by Will - NY
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

# 26. 5/21/04 9:15 AM by a postscript - roch
I don't have any registered firearms. The reason is that in case of insurrection or insurgency, the gov't has contingency plans to attempt to retrieve or recall them by force utilizing police, national guard, and regular military. It is in the form of a little-known DOD directive and the goal is to confiscate a large percentage of "legal" weapons within a short (24-48 hours) time span. Our gov't actually secretly consulted to the Canadian gov't when it was feared that French separatists were going to revolt in Quebec. We are all in their databases, so there is little escape!

# 27. 5/21/04 9:17 AM by edward - wyoming ny
right on;I wrote a letter to wham you should be back on the air.

# 28. 5/21/04 9:25 AM by Jim Morrison - Churchville, NY
I'm with you, Bob. Since this is a civil liberties issue, we should have no trouble enlisting the support of the ACLU, right? They are the self-appointed defenders of the Bill of Rights aren't they? Or is it just *some* civil liberties which are OK for them?

It's sad that even once liberty-minded Western states like Utah have become riddled with such government interference into our lives.

# 29. 5/21/04 9:53 AM by Al Neill - Richmond, VA
Bob,

Virginia has what I consider sensible position on gun carry - Anyone can carry a gun openly without a license, and anyone can carry concealed on their own property or in their place of business, and allow their employees to carry concealed in their business as well.

However carrying concealed elsewhere requires a permit. So we have the right to bear arms but not to conceal them without a permit.

I wonder how you feel about NY's gun laws where you can't even legally buy posses a gun without a license.

You are right though, it is an enumerated right in the constitution. How did the so-called "right" to have an abortion which is not listed anywhere in the document become more absolute than the right to bear arms? Imagine if we tried to institute a waiting period, background check, or mandatory class attendance to those seeking an abortion.

# 30. 5/21/04 10:09 AM by Rick - Arlington, VA
I'm all for this as long as the carrier completes a safety course.

My pint-sized girlfriend got a permit a while back and chose a gun she couldn't handle. After I took that cannon from her and replaced it with a .38 caliber five-shot (which she carries with Glazer slugs), I feel better - but the first time she fired the gun she picked (S&W .357 revolver with the snub barrel), she dropped the thing because of the noise and the two feet of flame coming out of the barrel.

I side with you completely, as long as I know a carrier has actually shot his or her gun and can handle it.

# 31. 5/21/04 10:16 AM
The American Communist Lovers Union a/k/a ACLU is highly selective as to what rights they choose to defend. They totally misrepresent their cause and agenda. Their name itself is false advertising.

# 32. 5/21/04 10:26 AM
But you are saying' Every crazy nut out there could carry...I don't know if that is a very good idea.

# 33. 5/21/04 10:32 AM by Mike - Penfield, NY
Hey Bob, take your freedom of speech and go yell: "I have a bomb", in an airport or school, or at your favorite sporting event.

We will miss you...

Should convicted murderers be allowed to carry? The government should be responsible for restricting the rights of those who have made decisions that demonstrate they cannot accept the responsibilities that go along with those rights.

# 34. 5/21/04 10:33 AM by Mike - Panguitch, UT
Right on Bob!

The most stupid thing about guns laws is that it is ILLEGAL already to do any sort of crime with a gun. Does that stop criminals? NO, IT DOESN'T!!!! Does anyone honestly believe that the idiots who shot up Columbine, or a man who goes into a convenience store with a gun to rob it, or some gangster doing drive by shooting would ever stop to think, "Wait a minute I can't use a gun for this, that's illegal." No, they wouldn't.

Criminals don't care about the law and that's pretty obvious. Guns laws only hurt us honest law abiding citizens. They prevent us from exercising our constitutionally guaranteed rights to protect ourselves from the sort of scum that preys on an unarmed public.

I recently read an article about interviews that were given by prison inmates about their criminal careers. Do you know what their biggest fear was? That they may come up against an armed victim while in the commission of their crime. Not the police, not the state, but the thing they fear most is an armed citizen. They fear guns in the home and guns carried by their potential victims. Sounds like the same fears that our state and federal legislatures have.

Maybe our government and the criminals who prey upon us have more in common than we previously thought.

# 35. 5/21/04 10:44 AM by Jonathan Lane - Rochester, NY
"Do you need a state license to exercise your First Amendment right to free speech? How about to exercise your freedom of religion? Or of the press?"

...give it a few years Bob.

-Jonathan Lane, CollegeConservative.com

# 36. 5/21/04 11:14 AM by Aaron Orullian - Orem, Utah
I think you have missed the boat here Bob. Yes it is a constitutional right but people need to receive some training in the laws regarding carrying a weapon and some training. You will have less accidents if people know when and how to use their concealed weapon. I had no clue about guns until I took a class. If you say you don't need that then a lot of people will be carrying guns that know nothing about their appropriate use. So of our terrorist friends might be law abiding citizens so does that mean they can carry a gun too. Hang in there Skippy

# 37. 5/21/04 11:29 AM
Ah yes, lets all bow to paranoia and arm ourselves to the teeth. We live in constant danger in "wonderland America" so everyone "git yer gun". If we're so much better than everyone in the world how come we gotta carry guns to the supermarket, church and a walk in the park?

You ain't talking about freedom, yer talking about slavery to paranoia. Pansy asses carry guns.

# 38. 5/21/04 11:43 AM by Richard - NY
Why on Earth didn't you quote the 2nd Amendment in your piece? All these comments debating the meaning of it, but the SINGLE SENTENCE Amendment itself is nowhere to be seen!

"A Well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I only wish it was as clear as you claim.

Editor's Note: it is, dick, it is.

# 39. 5/21/04 11:56 AM by JTM
If you are so passionate about it, go break the law and be the poster boy for gun rights. Lots of liberals go to jail for their rights, why can't a conservative?

The government is not taking guns away from people. The regulation is for safety and crime solving. Safety through education and crime solving through the ability to track a firearm's origins.

People who think the government wants to take their guns away are just plain paranoid.

# 40. 5/21/04 11:57 AM by larry - penfield
Hey Bob ! just get a dog license and cross out dog and pencil in "carry a concealed weapon", It worked when I needed a fish license for my pet halibut " eric "

# 41. 5/21/04 12:01 PM by Mark - Webster, NY
Licensing should be required and I'll use myself as an example:

I scare myself at the thought of possessing a gun. I have a wild temper and I've thought plenty of times that it's a good thing I don't own one.

I'll bet I'm not alone. I'll bet there are people with tempers that do own a good and I'll bet that these otherwise good people have used them to kill someone they love in a rage.

If it were me, I'd want to be stopped, caught and dealt with. Licensing makes prosecution a lot easier. To go one step further, each license on file at county hall should have a ballistics test on the weapon purchased attached to it.

Now, how's that for a twist?

# 42. 5/21/04 12:26 PM by Dan - Rochester, NY
Bob,

Have you ever considered a career with the National Rifle Association? Maybe you should. Thanks for doing your part in ensuring that the next generation of Americans (our children) will continue to have the right to own/carry/use long guns, and hand guns.

However, I do think that you may have overanalyzed this one a bit to much. It is my opinion that the reason we have permits for hand guns is because it is an excellent opportunity for States to raise tax money to pay for $300 toilet seats, and scientific studies on the breeding habits of barking spiders.

They (the States) enforce a permitting system because they can, not because it protects or infringes upon our rights, or keeps us safe from the mentally ill. If that was the case, then they would have a permitting system for all guns, not just hand guns. It is all about Taxes, and not much to do with rights.

It cost me $150 to get my Pistol Permit a few years ago....that's about 0.5 government toilet seats. I hope someone else bought the other half so nobody falls in and gets wet.

I think we are both on the same side of the proverbial gun control wall...just looking through different windows.

# 43. 5/21/04 12:28 PM by Silly little girl some may say
Sorry, but I had to comment about number 21's point of view. Though I agree that it's not quite as breath taking because people have them everywhere and it's not as sparse as it once was (thought that proves that we are proud). I have to say that it does tend to make my stomach turn that people don't have the respect for it that they should. When a flag is damaged it needs to be properly taken care of and burned. My step-mother picked one out of the trash a week ago and brought it home to mend it. When they hit the ground it needs to be picked up. It's not to be destroyed like the way other countries are destroying it and that makes me cry. Seeing the huge flags that sometimes fly over car dealerships still to this day makes me pause and watch it fly the beauty of it is overwhelming. Comment about the gun issue, I was raised in a house that had guns lying around all the time (father was a police officer), I respect them and the people who carry them (licensed people for they know what to do and what not to do). P.S. Bob, how is your son who is on his mission doing?

# 44. 5/21/04 12:42 PM by Chad - Owego NY
Amen, brother Bob!

# 45. 5/21/04 1:05 PM
I would like to start a support group for all people named 'Richard'. It must be trauamtizing to be called 'dick' all the time.

Editor's Note: how about the richard juniors, the ones who grew up being called "little dick"

# 46. 5/21/04 1:23 PM by John Kekacs - Layton, Utah
Bob, I'm have a Utah Concealed Firearms Permit. To me gun control is the ability to hit the target repeatedly and accurately. The only class I think you need to go to is for your own protection. That class should be on the laws of when you can shoot someone. That class would have nothing to do with a concealed permit.

# 47. 5/21/04 1:46 PM by The Rifleman - Magna, Utah
#42 is correct - it is mostly about revenue to the government. Any type of license is just a revenue source for some government agency. An interesting saying goes like this: "A fine is a tax for doing something wrong; a tax is a fine for doing something right." I guess a license is both a fine and a tax under those definitions. And the background check is garbage. Many people would have negative information show up in their background check, but this constitutional right should not be denied unless the action or crime was aggravated by the actual use of some type of weapon; certain misdemeanor crimes can be much more violent and dangerous than certain felony crimes.

# 48. 5/21/04 2:12 PM by Patty - Fairport, NY
Bob,

I'd like to know your comments on Bill Cosby's speech to the NAACP. It would be a pleasure to read your remarks, I'm sure.

# 49. 5/21/04 2:15 PM by Cameron De Vries - West Valley City
Great article, Bob!

Hey Larry (comment #40), you have a pet halibut named "Eric" too? I enjoyed your comment. Say "hi" to Eric the "half-bee" for me.

# 50. 5/21/04 2:18 PM by Steve - Chili
The right to have a gun is a right. These comments are what Bob is talking about. If you feel that it is correct to have to have a pistol permit, then you feel you should have to have a permit for all the rights guaranteed by the constitution. Including the right to free speech and the right to practice your religion.

To the bonehead asking if criminals should be allowed to have guns. Last time I check most criminals have illegal guns anyway. I'll bet if you tried you could by a handgun for $50 on the street (don't know) I just paid $150 to get my permit.

Bob I will do you one better. This past year the New York State legislature proposed a law that would require a renewable permit every five years. This would be nothing more than a Money Grab for the state. Recently I applied for my pistol permit and by the time I was done paying for the application and the fingerprinting the photos and the permit fee It cost me $150 to exercise my right to have a gun.

The proposal for the new permit would also allow the County to add to the cost and would literally make this another cash cow for government. Just raise the fees every 5 years and when somebody wants to get rid of there gun when it becomes to expensive the state can charge a nominal gun disposal fee. Ca ching

Would you like to:
add your own comment? or send this story to a friend?