Utah and Guns

Here's a fascinating article in the CS Monitor about the state of gun laws in Utah. There, where apparently freedom-loving people predominate, the current controversy is whether one should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon on campus at the University of Utah. The lawmakers in Utah answered that question in the affirmative:

Utah again took a strong Second Amendment stand this spring, overthrowing a 30-year University of Utah policy that banned concealed weapons on campus. But in a twist, "the U" is fighting back.

"There are places where guns are not appropriate," says spokeswoman Coralie Adler, who adds that the university will challenge the law in court.

The article doesn't say on what grounds the university is challenging the law allowing the concealed carry, but suggests the fight is similar to others going on around the country:

For 20 years, the battle has focused on whether states should allow everyday citizens to carry firearms in public, as well as how easy a concealed-weapons permit should be to get. Now, gun-rights groups appear to have won all the states they can, and those 46 states are turning to the question at issue in Utah: Where are guns appropriate?

"That's going to be the fight in all these states," says William Vizzard, a gun-control expert at California State University in Sacramento.

There are already hints about the shape that debate might take. So far, modest steps have met with some success. States are increasingly working out deals with other states so their concealed-weapons permits will be valid elsewhere. And Arizona looks set to amend its concealed-weapons laws to allow permit holders with a gun to enter a business that sells alcohol - so long as they don't drink.

More radical efforts, however, have failed. Vermont has long been the only state with no gun laws, meaning that all residents can carry guns without a permit. But when New Hampshire voted on a similar proposal several weeks ago, it was overwhelmingly defeated.

But, according to the article, Utah is a beacon of freedom:

To Utahns and many of their big sky brethren, the Second Amendment words about a "well-regulated militia" -- not just "the right to keep and bear arms" -- point to a treasured heritage. Moreover, in a place where two rural towns once voted on whether to become "UN-free zones," and where trust in government runs as deep as the shallow pan of the Great Salt Lake, guns represent something more.

"[Guns] are important as a hedge to government tyranny," says Mitch Vilos, author of several books about Utah gun law. "The pioneers that settled this land were very independent, and we cherish the right to determine our own destiny."

Meanwhile, those in favor of tyranny marched on Mother's Day to support the renewal of the ban on scary looking guns -- er, I mean the ban on "assault weapons" -- which is scheduled to expire in September of this year. At that so-called Million Mom March, Jesse Jackson was demagoguing as usual:

"These are not guns for the marksman," said the Rev. Jesse Jackson. "These are guns for those who spray and kill en masse."

Notice the Rev. Jackson's plain implication that the assault weapons ban bars the sale of fully-automatic weapons -- i.e., weapons that fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger -- by saying that the law covers guns that "spray and kill en masse." That implication is simply false. Fully-automatic weapons are regulated under a different law (passed in 1986) that will not expire this year, they are not regulated by the ban on scary looking guns -- er, sorry, I mean on assault weapons.

The assault weapons ban, by contrast, regulates semi-automatic weapons -- i.e., guns that fire one round for each pull of the trigger -- but only certain models that look scarier than others (typically those with a military-style look). But functionally the semi-automatic guns currently banned by the assault weapons law are no different than the numerous semi-automatic pistols and rifles that are legally purchased today for hunting, target shooting, collecting, and personal protection. This is completely irrational -- the law regulates form over substance. Indeed, if one believes that the scarier-looking semi-automatic guns now covered by the assault weapons ban should be kept out of the hands of law abiding citizens, that person logically would have to conclude that all other semi-automatic guns should also be banned -- as they are no different functionally.

And in all events, I'm shocked that the Rev. Jackson -- the famed civil rights activist -- and the marchers have no respect for federalism or the second amendment.