# Should Governer Herbert Veto the Concealed Carry Bill?



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I'm interested to see what the consensus among UWN members is.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

No but he probably will. He's spineless. He proved that on the stream access legislation.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

My bet is that he will allow it to become law without his signature


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

No, but He will probably let it become into law to save face from not vetoing it.


----------



## MKP (Mar 7, 2010)

Loke said:


> My bet is that he will allow it to become law without his signature


^^^^^^
This is allow him to play both sides of the fence, right up his alley.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I find it hard to believe that anyone who owns firearms, carries them in the field, and uses them to hunt with would have any problems with this law. We are becoming sheeple.

He shouldn't veto it, but I'm afraid that he will.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> I find it hard to believe that anyone who owns firearms, carries them in the field, and uses them to hunt with would have any problems with this law. *We are becoming sheeple*.
> 
> He shouldn't veto it, but I'm afraid that he will.


+1,000,000! Actually, based on many comments on this issue, many have 'progressed' well beyond being mere sheople............!


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

:O//: NO VETO :!:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

No veto

I want him to sign


----------



## NoShot (Nov 23, 2007)

No he should not!


----------



## Mavis13 (Oct 29, 2007)

Here's my take; I look at any law with the same ideals:
Does it make us more free= Good do it
Does it make us less free= Bad don't do it
Is it only feel good legislation - Don't waste everyone's time.
I like the fact that our state is working to insure that we have rights to possess firearms.
However; I'm concerned this bill, though well intentioned, is more trouble than it's worth. With all the other no gun laws like no guns in a school zone, a person can only carry without a permit in the middle of nowhere. This means the uninformed may now think they can carry anywhere and end up becoming unwilling criminals out of ignorance and that = less freedom. And though we should all stay informed with the craziness of the law makers it's not such an easy thing to do. So this bill amounts to feel good legislation and is no different than the liberals who pass laws contrary to our freedoms just to see what sticks, except it's in favor of what I like this time.
Here's what I propose; If our state truly wants to show the others that we stand for the constitution then we need to slow down look at all the laws pertaining to firearms and pass a comprehensive reform bill that adjusts all of these aspects. Such as firearms are to be allowed any place any time by anyone who has not forfeited their rights due to criminal behavior. I want cops to be able to arrest gang bangers simply because they have a gun but I want it to be highly limited so that a law abiding person can not be harassed. I think it's wise to discuss the relation to guns and the mentally ill but again it's a slippery slope and thus should favor freedom. A law is only good if it makes us more free; this one tries in its intent but due to all the other garbage laws it amounts to little if nothing at all. So sign it; veto it, let it pass; in the end it's still just feel good legislation and I'd feel better if we spent the time doing something comprehensive.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

proutdoors said:


> Fishrmn said:
> 
> 
> > I find it hard to believe that anyone who owns firearms, carries them in the field, and uses them to hunt with would have any problems with this law. *We are becoming sheeple*.
> ...


+1. Sheeple is way too mild.


----------



## KennyC (Apr 28, 2010)

I think that if you buy a gun legally then you should legally carry it, however the house and the senate have the manditory 2/3 right now to overturn a veto. This means he could veto the bill and please all the anti-gun groups and still make everyone happy that wants the law. The house already said they will reverse a veto. I don't think that this law would be a make it or break it. What it will do is not provide enough information to those that choose to exercise their right to carry without a permit. I am interested to see if this will decrease crime and if so to what extent.


----------



## outdoorser (Jan 14, 2013)

Not sure.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

As the debate pro and con rages forth on the other thread, ( I doubt that anyone will change their mind as a result of the debate .) I find this thread very interesting because it simple compares numbers. As I have been following the progress, the tally has swung back and forth but for the most part has kept pretty even. According to my definition that constitutes controversial .


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

While it can be difficult, I appreciate a good honest debate.....it's what free men do.-----SS


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

I believe most of the people who favor laws and restrictions on guns are fearful that people who aren't as "good" (in whatever way) as they are will be armed. I am guilty of it myself. Some of the people I see buying guns shouldn't be allowed to have scissors or super glue, but who am I to decide? They aren't criminals so they have the same rights as I do. As it should be.


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

I hope it goes through even though I still think EVERYONE who carries concealed should take the CCW class.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Voted "No"........

In some ways I have been sitting on the fence, on this issue. Reading responses in many different places, I have come to the decision that I am tired of seeing our liberties erode away. I know that there are among us those that in all reality should never handle a firearm. But as I reason through it, I just cannot come up with a good reason any good citizen should be required to jump through any more government hoops. I also find it interesting that such a debate goes on about firearms with out having the same talk about drugs and alcohol. I'm pretty sure that drugs and alcohol have ruined more lives then guns ever dreamed of. Yet we are not required to be finger printed, register with the FBI, carry I.D., or carry our booze in the open when transporting.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> While it can be difficult, I appreciate a good honest debate.....it's what free men do.-----SS


Correct, free people debate.................but when laws are passed that limit liberty, you can kiss freedom away. When it passed for emotional reasons, it ensures tyranny will be right around the corner. I carry, sometimes open carry, and sometimes concealed, and I admit that I do NOT have a piece of paper issued by the State of Utah that 'allows' me to do so, and yet I have yet to kill anyone, maim anyone, threaten anyone, or cause panic................go figure.................! :shock:


----------



## izzydog (Jan 18, 2008)

My birth certificate is my CWP! It says I was born in America, Land Of The Free!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

izzydog said:


> My birth certificate is my CWP! It says I was born in America, Land Of The Free!


B-I-N-G-O!


----------



## izzydog (Jan 18, 2008)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03 ... -services/

Read this and see what you think. Bit by bit, a little at a time.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> Springville Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > While it can be difficult, I appreciate a good honest debate.....it's what free men do.-----SS
> ...


All laws serve to limit liberty in one way or another. Wouldn't you submit that there are often times that the citizens, through representation, agree to laws that limit liberty when it is prudent to do so? Isn't this process what keeps us somewhere between tyranny and anarchy? Would you suggest that there should be no laws at all regulating types, transfer, and possession of arms?

If we were talking about Feinstein's ban, I would be 100% in agreement with your statement about laws created for emotional reasons. I don't think that this holds true regarding this law which does not have the ability to further limit any liberty, only expand it in passing, or maintain it in failing. That is if you consider less regulation to mean more freedom in this case.--------SS


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> All laws serve to limit liberty in one way or another. Wouldn't you submit that there are often times that the citizens, through representation, agree to laws that limit liberty when it is prudent to do so? Isn't this process what keeps us somewhere between tyranny and anarchy? Would you suggest that there should be no laws at all regulating types, transfer, and possession of arms? I have to disagree that all laws serve to limit liberty. But, we could simply be talking semantics........Good/sound Constitutionally based laws do not limit liberty. They only restriction one/some from going beyond their individual liberty(s), but theft and being given 'freedom' at the expense of others are not liberties to begin with. This nation was set up pert near tyranny, with minimal government intrusion. We have since 'progressed' far from the Principles that made this nation great. As for laws in regards to guns......I say the only limitation that should restrict gun types is based on what the government has. The primary purpose of the 2nd was to keep the government in check, which is only possible if the citizens have access to equal or greater firepower. I don't see why it is any of the governments business what guns I own, where I got them, or who I sell them too. Only convicted violent criminals should be restricted, but restrict them and only them.....not all citizens!
> 
> If we were talking about Feinstein's ban, I would be 100% in agreement with your statement about laws created for emotional reasons. I don't think that this holds true regarding this law which does not have the ability to further limit any liberty, only expand it in passing, or maintain it in failing. That is if you consider less regulation to mean more freedom in this case.--------SS Any reduction in regulations is a good start, Gettiing rid of 99.999999% of all regulations is my dream.........!


----------

