"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert Humphrey
Gov. Gary Herbert may be considering a veto of SB 11, a great pro-gun-rights bill that recently passed. SB 11 exempts Utah-made firearms from federal gun laws, as long as those firearms are sold and kept within Utah. Please contact Gov. Gary Herbert and encourage him to sign SB 11.
Gov. Gary Herbert
Utah State Capitol Complex
350 North State Street, Suite 200
PO Box 142220
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2220
Phone: (801)538-1000
Toll-free: (800)705-2464
Fax: (801)538-1528
A pre-written letter is provided below, which you may fill out, sign, and send if you wish. Or feel free to write your own message or make a phone call to the Governor's office. If you send an old-fashioned letter via first-class mail, please get it in the mail box in the next day or two. Regular letters on paper carry more clout than e-mail messages, but e-mail is certainly better than nothing.
Important Notice: Republican Party delegates have recently been receiving phone calls from Gov. Herbert’s campaign office, asking for any feedback and suggestions that delegates might want to offer the Governor. Not all delegates have yet received this information, so we’re passing it on to you. If you’re currently a state or county delegate for the Republican Party in Utah, we encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity to contact the Governor’s campaign office and tell them that you’re a delegate and that you’d like the Governor to sign SB 11. Please be prepared to tell them the precinct number in which you’re a delegate.
The contact info for GOP delegates to use is:
Phone: (801)328-2010
e-mail: gary@garyherbert.com
Note: GOUtah! does not endorse Gov. Herbert’s election campaign (or anyone else’s election campaign), nor do we endorse the Utah Republican Party (or any other political party). We’re merely taking advantage of the invitation the Governor has specifically extended to GOP delegates to provide suggestions and feedback. Given that a number of GOUtah! subscribers happen to be GOP delegates, we see this as an extra opportunity to encourage the Governor to support the right to keep and bear arms.
SB 11, a great pro-gun-rights bill sponsored by Sen. Margaret Dayton of Senate District 15 has passed both the Senate and the House and has been sent to Governor Gary Herbert for his signature. GOUtah! strongly supports SB 11.
However, we’ve heard that Gov. Herbert is considering vetoing this bill.
In a nutshell, SB 11 is modeled after a law passed last year in Montana. The Montana law was designed to exempt firearms from federal regulations if the firearms are manufactured, sold, and kept within the state of Montana. SB 11 does the same thing for firearms that are manufactured, sold, and kept within the state of Utah. We’ve read the text of the bill and believe it’s designed to have the maximum possible chance of holding up in court. Even if the federal courts overturn SB 11, we believe it’s a chance worth taking and a fight worth fighting.
In this article, we’re going to skip the 2nd Amendment entirely and focus instead on the 10th Amendment, which, like the 2nd, is part of the Bill of Rights. Although we at GOUtah! spend most of our time fighting against laws and regulations that, in our opinion, violate the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment and by the Utah State Constitution, we’re certainly willing to attack gun-control laws from other angles as well.
The 10th Amendment says that the federal government can only exercise those powers granted to it by the U.S. Constitution, and that all other powers are reserved for the states or the people unless explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. The actual text of the 10th Amendment reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
If you read the Constitution, you’ll find that the powers granted to the United States Government are pretty few and far between. One of the few powers granted to the federal government is the power to regulate interstate commerce. The original intent of the "Commerce Clause", as it has come to be known, was to enable the federal government to prevent states from enacting trade barriers against each other. In the 19th century, the Commerce Clause was reasonably interpreted to enable the federal government to take actions that would enhance interstate commerce, such as encouraging the construction of the first trans-continental railroad via land grants. However, beginning in the 1930s, the Supreme Court began radically stretching its interpretation of the Commerce Clause in order to allow Congress to regulate, restrict, tax, and ban all sorts of activities in the name of "regulating interstate commerce", even when there was little or no apparent connection between the activity in question and interstate commerce. For example, all of the federal gun-control laws currently on the books are based on the assumption that virtually any conceivable type of federal gun regulation is constitutionally permitted as a form of regulating interstate commerce.
Most federal gun laws contain text that tries to tie gun control to interstate commerce. For example, the federal Lautenberg Law that was passed back in 1996 makes it illegal for you to possess a firearm or ammunition if you’re getting a divorce and your soon-to-be-ex-spouse gets a judge to issue a standard boilerplate protective order against you. Or if you’re a 70-year-old woman and you were married to an abusive husband 50 years ago and you slapped him during an argument and he dragged you down to the police station and forced you to confess. Let’s set aside for the moment the question of whether the Lautenberg Law violates the 2nd Amendment, and focus instead on the 10th Amendment.
It’s important to note that the Lautenberg Law doesn’t actually prohibit such people from owning guns or ammo per se. The Lautenberg Law merely makes it illegal for such individuals "to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce." Other federal gun control laws contain similar language. The "receive" part is what’s usually used when federal authorities enforce this law. If you’re duck hunting with friends and one of them hands you his gun, you’re "receiving" a firearm that was probably shipped across a state line at some point by an importer, manufacturer, distributor or dealer. Thus, if you’re subject to the Lautenberg Law (or any other federal gun laws), it’s illegal for you to take the shotgun when your friend tries to hand it to you.
But what if someone in Utah manufactures a firearm, stamps "Made in Utah" on the receiver or frame, and sells that gun to another Utah resident? For that matter, what if he starts a regular business doing this sort of thing? What if he does this without obtaining the necessary federal firearms manufacturing license? What if he sells his products to local dealers who don’t have federal firearms dealer’s licenses and who only sell guns to Utah residents? This has nothing to do with interstate commerce. Therefore, such activities should not be subject to federal law. However, we suspect that the feds won’t view it that way.
It appears that the purpose of SB 11 is to lay the groundwork for a test case in federal court to determine whether existing federal gun laws are applicable to guns that aren’t involved in interstate commerce. We’ve heard that Gov. Herbert is concerned about the potential expense for the state involved in such a test case. At least one Utah newspaper has used the alleged cost as and excuse for opposing SB 11.
However, it’s likely that any test cases that result from SB 11 will be sponsored and funded by private groups. The Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association are already sponsoring a test case for the Montana law. In all likelihood, SB 11 won’t cost the state a dime. But even if it does, it will be money well spent.
For details about the lawsuit in Montana, [click here].
Finally, we should note that a number of other states are attempting to pass laws like this. The more the merrier. There’s strength in numbers. We see no reason for the Governor of one of the nation’s most pro-gun states to refuse to stand with other states that are challenging federal gun laws on 10th-Amendment grounds. And the more states that pass such laws, the more likely that the Supreme Court will eventually validate them (though such validation can’t be guaranteed).
To see which states are considering legislation similar to SB 11, go to http://firearmsfreedomact.com.
Thanks to your efforts, HB 78 Substitute (see GOUtah! Alert #326) has passed the House and is now in the Senate. HB 78 Substitute, sponsored by Rep. Stephen Sandstrom of House District 58, clarifies the law regarding the use of deadly force for self-defense in a couple of important ways.
We’ll keep you posted.
One of the more horrifying incidents of recent memory occurred in 2008 when ten young Muslim terrorists spent the better part of a day walking around the city of Bombay, India, massacring 173 people and wounding 308. Numerous opportunities existed for armed citizens to kill these creeps, but India’s strict gun laws make it extremely difficult to get a gun permit. The Indian government has responded to the Bombay incident by proposing to make the nation’s gun laws even more restrictive. This is, of course, a ridiculous approach.
Fortunately, a lively gun-rights movement is developing in India. Here’s an article in the Washington Post about it.
Here’s a link to Indians For Guns, which appears to be the Indian equivalent of the NRA.
We wish our gun-loving friends in India well, and we look forward to the day when Indians can legally own and carry firearms with minimal government interference.
In a rare display of sensibility about proper use of self-defense weapons, The Salt Lake Tribune was in agreement with the GOUtah! position on HB 78 Substitute (see Alert #326), in an editorial titled 'I've got a gun' on 2 February,2010. They correctly conclude that the ability to indicate the posession of a self-defense weapon in a threatening situation might be enough to defuse the situation without having to resort to the use of the weapon. They cite part of the Utah statue, "A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
With the severe snow storms of the past weeks also came declarations of "States of Emergency" in several states. When such a declaration was made in North Carolina the Police Chief of King, NC, Paula May, interpreted this to mean "...a state of emergency prohibits the transportation, purchase sale and possession of firearms other than on one's own premises." This raised a firestorm of indignation from residents as reported by WXII12 in an amended article posted 9 February, 2010.
As Charles Hardy, GOUtah! Policy Director, wrote:
Back in 2008, Sen. Madsen sponsored and successfully passed SB 157, "RIGHTS OF CITIZENS TO CARRY FIREARMS IN DECLARED EMERGENCY". The bill, "provides that during a declared state of emergency or local emergency neither the governor nor an agency of a governmental entity or political subdivision may impose restrictions on the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transport, storage, display, or use of a firearm or ammunition;
[And] provides that during a declared state of emergency an individual, while acting or purporting to act on behalf of the state or a political subdivision, may not confiscate a privately owned firearm of another individual;Many opponents said such a bill was not needed
Many opponents to this bill at the time said we did not need it. Well, I don't know that North Carolina is usually viewed as a draconian, anti-gun kind of State. But the following report demonstrates why it is important to limit the ability of government to infringe our rights. Methinks that during a major natural disaster or emergency when police and other resources are stretched thin is when law abiding citizens are most likely to need to exercise their rights to an effective self-defense.
My thanks to Senator Madsen for his foresight and to all those who supported this good bill in 2008.
Coincidentally, both the Deseret Morning News and The Salt Lake Tribune published editorials on 13 February, 2010, respectively titled "A likely losing battle" and "Gun fight, Governor should veto this one" against SB 11. Both papers espouse the same position that this is a fight that Utah should not engage in due to the cost of such a confrontation with the federal government.
"How would members of the Utah Senate feel if one of their family, friends or neighbors was shot by someone who had bought, without a background check, a 'Utah-made' gun, and this person was a felon with a history of violent crimes? ('Senate OKs bill exempting Utah-made guns from firearms laws,' Tribune , Feb. 3) Would they send their grieving friends and family a sympathy card explaining 'states rights'? I really would like to know."
-- Lynne Romney, in a letter printed in The Salt Lake Tribune, 7 February, 2010.
"Five million of us in the National Rifle Association were very gratified by the Supreme Court ruling giving us back a right that was taken away by the McCain-Feingold fraud.
The Democrats found a way around it by merely donating money in the names of the dead or indigent. This was a scandal that the mainstream media did its best to cover up. In my opinion, McCain-Feingold was aimed directly at groups like the NRA or pro-life organizations. What is the NRA, if not millions of like-minded individuals speaking with one voice?
The Supreme Court got it right. The First Amendment gave us free speech and the Second Amendment gave us the means to enforce it. Recent polling has shown that Democrats favor socialism, and freedom is anathema to socialists. Ergo, Democrats are dismayed at our return of liberties. The letters in the Deseret News opinion section reflect this."
-- Ron Russell, in a letter printed in the Deseret News, 9 February, 2010.
"On Friday, Feb. 5, the Utah House passed House Bill 78, which would allow people who are carrying a concealed weapon to 'show or speak' of that fact in order to defuse a dangerous situation. In what kind of situation is this show-and-tell necessary or advised?
Well, I listened to the floor debate, and here's an example given by Rep. Richard Greenwood, R-Roy. If, while you're in line at a theater with your grandchildren, you are standing near a group of kids who are using 'bad language' that you think inappropriate, you would be justified not only to ask them to mind their language but, should you feel the situation escalating, to inform them that you're carrying a gun. Threatening a group of children with a weapon because they're using language you disapprove of -- this is a dangerous situation and justifies the threat of deadly force?
I don't know if I was more appalled by this idiotic example of the mind-set of someone more attached to the security blanket of a gun than reality, or by the fact that not one of the other representatives in the chamber was paying enough attention to call him on it."
-- Steven Bean, in a letter printed in The Salt Lake Tribune, 12 February, 2010.
Date:
From:
To: Governor Gary R. Herbert
Subject: Please Sign SB 11
Dear Governor Herbert:
I encourage you to sign SB 11, the bill that exempts ordinary firearms that are manufactured, sold, and kept in the State of Utah from federal gun regulations.
This bill, if it becomes law, will probably cost the state nothing. Any test cases resulting from SB 11 will most likely be initiated and funded by private entities as is already happening in Montana, which passed a similar law last year. Contrary to false reports being circulated in Utah, the federal government is not suing the state of Montana over its new gun law. Instead, private gun-rights groups are suing the federal government to gain federal recognition of the validity of the Montana law.
For decades, the federal government has expanded the scope of its gun laws based on the questionable assumption that such regulation is permitted by the 10th Amendment under Congress’ power to regulate intestate commerce. The texts of most federal gun laws explicitly indicate that these laws apply only to firearms that "have been involved in interstate commerce." I say it’s time to call Congress’ bluff by enacting a state law protecting commerce in firearms that occurs entirely within Utah’s borders.
Sincerely,
That concludes the GOUtah! Political and Legislative Alert #327 for 15 February, 2010. We hope this information will be of assistance to you in defending your firearms rights.
Remember that getting this information is meaningless unless You Act On It Today. If you just read it and dump it in the trash, your gun rights, and the gun rights of future generations go in the trash with it. Get involved, get active and get vocal!
Return to GOUtah! Archive Index
Return to GOUtah! Home Page