Utah

Bill advances seeking to keep guns from domestic violence perpetrators

Comments

Return To Article
  • FelisConcolor Layton, UT
    Feb. 13, 2017 10:03 p.m.

    "sponsor Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, said...that Utah's domestic violence crime rate has long been higher than the national average"

    LOL, no.

    It is true that Utah has a higher percentage of homicides due to domestic violence than the US as a whole (42% to 30%), but since Utah's overall homicide rate is much lower than the national rate (1.8 per 100,000 vs. 4.9 per 100,000) the actual rate -- the frequency it occurs in the population -- is much lower.

    When adjusting for rates, Utah's domestic violence rate is roughly 0.8 per 100,000 population, nearly one half that of the US domestic violence homicide rate of roughly 1.47 per 100,000.

  • zgomer Prestron, ID
    Feb. 13, 2017 6:15 p.m.

    As sad as it a for this young lady to keep her life over something as wanting a divorce, the numbers just aren't there to warrant something like this by the anti gun grabbers. It won't work, never has worked and never will. It won't pass.

  • Meter Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 13, 2017 2:57 p.m.

    Yep Ute 95

    What's your problem with the small statement I made within the larger post? Care to explain why that jumped out at you, or are you willing to discuss the merits, and short falls of this bill?

  • Utah'95 FPO, AE
    Feb. 13, 2017 1:56 p.m.

    Multi,

    "The intelligence that is me..."

    Really?

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Feb. 13, 2017 11:36 a.m.

    A new bill is being sponsored in the US Congress by the four Representatives from Utah. It's called the "Hearing Restoration Act " which makes it much easier for felons, kids and everyone else to get silencers for their guns. Under the guise of "preventing hearing loss" the bill eliminates the 9 month waiting period and the $200. tax for all who want a silencers to hide their crimes. At least when the bill passes we won't be able to hear our neighbors being murdered in their homes. I want to hear what law enforcement will say about that bill.

  • Multi Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 13, 2017 11:12 a.m.

    Laura

    If the Dnews is going to let people get away with describing gun folks, I believe describing democrats is also allowable.

    The point stands the Democrats seem to like taking freedoms away from the individuals.

    Taking guns away isn't going to stop the problem, separating yourself from the situation will help that problem however.

    Let's actually have a discussion, nobody seems to want to engage the intelligence that is me, probably because I'll require the other party to qualify their claims.

  • David Lloyd-Jones Toronto, 00
    Feb. 13, 2017 10:57 a.m.

    A well regulated militia would be one that was supervised by its state legislature to make sure it trained its members, weeded out the unsuitable, and kept guns in the armories safe and sound.

    Heller, a finding of an aggressively partisan, dogmatic, and un-Constitutional legal faction temporarily running the Supreme Court, has not a grain nor a scuple of historical or Constitutional foundation.

    -dlj.

  • Unclefred Ticonderoga, NY
    Feb. 13, 2017 10:45 a.m.

    The bill is not sane, nor is the federal law. I have seen spouses, in order to augment their divorce try, ask for an order of protection, and get it. Who ever complains first is the victim, the other the perp. This law, if passed and enforced, will be yet another assault on peoples constitutional rights. I grieve with the father, I do, but adding more pain and suffering to domestic disputes solves nothing.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 13, 2017 10:30 a.m.

    @ Multi wrote (10:04AM)

    "I mean it's no surprise that the Dems like yourself don't like individual freedom.."

    This is not a statement which is consistent with the DN standards of respectful, productive discussion.

  • Multi Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 13, 2017 10:04 a.m.

    Unrepentant

    Both rights can exist at the same time, I know you don't see it like that, but it's shortsighted to think we can't have one without the other.

    I mean it's no surprise that the Dems like yourself don't like individual freedom, your media has been pushing the idea of censoring people's thoughts you don't agree with, so what's wrong with taking away people's best right to protect themselves right?

    Besides that life, and liberty aren't actually codified nor even quantifiable rights. That is a feel good statement by yourself. Tell me what the standard of liberty is, simply because my view of liberty probably differs from what you believe it is.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Feb. 13, 2017 10:02 a.m.

    DN Subscriber is correct. This bill will do nothing. Federal law already bans for life anyone convicted of any DV offense from touching a gun.

    Federal and State laway already make it illegal for a prohibited person to try to buy a gun. Every year over a thousand people in Utah are denied a gun purchase because they are a prohibited person. Not a single person is prosecuted for trying to buy guns. That means they remain free to go buy or steal a gun, or to commit a crime of a violence without a gun.

    This bill, like federal law, imposes a lifetime loss of rights with no chance to ever regain that right. Zero chance for redemption, a lifetime scarlet letter. Unlike felon convictions where there is a chance to regain rights, misdemeanor DV convictions (and mental illness issues) have no chance for regaining fundamental rights.

    We would not tolerate this for freedom for religion, press, speech, privacy, due process, freedom to travel, nor any other right.

    Federal law js bad in this regard, there is no reason to mirror that in State law.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Feb. 13, 2017 9:55 a.m.

    Geez, the gun folks are out in force.

    Does the sacred second amendment trump a person's right to life and liberty? Wow what a claim.

    And besides all that, if the NRA (certainly no fan of gun restrictions) is willing to work on a fix for the proposed law that aligns it with the federal law, I don't understand the gun folks objections.

    How sad that even reasonable restrictions to obscene abuses have their naysayers.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Feb. 13, 2017 9:25 a.m.

    @DN Subscriber, you make a good point about the fact that existing laws aren't enforced. But where did you get the idea that " the best advice for those in an abusive relationship is to leave, get a gun and training "? What evidence is there that having a loaded gun makes you safer than not?

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 13, 2017 9:09 a.m.

    Although well intentioned, this is a "feel good" bill that will not stop bad guys, and opens the door to abuse by vindictive persons.
    The father's analysis that it would not have saved his daughter is correct.

    The fact that the feds don't bother to enforce the existing law is very important. If we are serious about keeping guns away from bad guys, we need to enforce existing laws.

    Last year 2,335 domestic abusers, felons, etc, in Utah tried to buy a gun in violation of both state and federal laws. The ugly truth is that not a single one was prosecuted. Not one! If we are not enforcing those laws, how will another "feel good" law make us any safer?

    Meanwhile, the best advice for those in an abusive relationship is to leave, get a gun and training to protect yourself, and a piece of paper protective order to keep lawyers busy.

    This is not a bill which will actually protect anyone, although very appealing on an emotional basis.

    Prosecute those breaking our current domestic violence laws, and those illegally trying to buy guns. No new laws until existing ones are enforced!

  • Multi Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 13, 2017 8:01 a.m.

    Mr. Bored

    Tell me about the morality of taking away a constitutional right when there is no judicial process to be put on that list? No hearing, or evidence presentation, you can just end up on it somehow with no reason given.

    That doesn't sound OK to me, I'm befuddled why it sounds OK to you?

  • Multi Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 13, 2017 7:36 a.m.

    Ha

    You really can't argue with taking guns away from people who have had domestic violence issues, but that in and of itself doesn't stop the likelihood of people still dying. I got to tell you, I think I'd rather be shot, than stabbed or beaten to death.

    The bill is already scuttled however, saying this bill wouldn't have protected the person it was meant to protect isn't a very good endorsement of the bills ability to do what we are passing it for.

    So if women are seeking a divorce or attempting to get out of a relationship, I'd suggest they leave the house with the abusive person inside it. Don't hang around.

  • Freedom Seeker Riverton, UT
    Feb. 13, 2017 6:40 a.m.

    More gun laws will do nothing to stop gun violence. Why can't people see the obvious?

    There are only 2 things that will reduce gun violence.
    1. Fear of being shot by the person or persons you attack, in other words, more guns.
    2. Mandatory minimum 10 year sentence for using a gun in any kind of crime.

    This is not rocket science, let's use our heads for a change.

  • Bored to the point of THIS! Ogden, UT
    Feb. 13, 2017 5:51 a.m.

    We won't take guns from people on the "No Fly List", why would Utah try this?

    We need more guns. One in each hand and one in our pocket and one in our closet, etc....

  • IceCreamGhost Sandy, UT
    Feb. 13, 2017 2:38 a.m.

    This bill should be implemented on a case by case basis. I think there is a place for intelligent limits on gun ownership, and people with a history of violence should have barriers for owning guns.

  • Utah'95 FPO, AE
    Feb. 13, 2017 1:55 a.m.

    This bill is a no-brainer, but it will never pass. US citizens are too in love with their firearms to give them up.

  • Tumbleweed Centerville, UT
    Feb. 13, 2017 12:44 a.m.

    This law and the advice of the judicial counsel to get rid of all of the weapons in the home gives women a false sense of security. The Weber Sheriff's advice to get a firearm and get training in addition to getting a protective order is probably the best advice. A bullet proof vest wouldn't be a bad idea either. If a husband is going to kill his wife (and possibly himself), he's not going to worry about being arrested for having an illegal gun. But if women are led to believe they are going to be safer because of this law, they are being woefully misled. Too bad politicians pass worthless laws just to look like they are "doing something."

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 12, 2017 11:33 p.m.

    It's too easy for a person to falsely accuse another person to take away a person's constitutional right without being convicted of a crime.

    Besides taking away a gun isn't going to stop a person who really is dangerous. There are too many other ways to hurt or kill a person. Murder was very common before guns were invented.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 12, 2017 11:23 p.m.

    If the state is going to take away a person's most reliable means to defend themselves, the state ought to provide the person with an alternative reliable means of protection.

    A 24 hour a day armed guard would be one way.

    No this wouldn't convenient, but taking away a person's constitutional rights ought not be convenient or easy.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Feb. 12, 2017 1:18 p.m.

    No, on this bill. Domestic Violence covers a very broad range. I have a friend, who was having marital issues-his wife was cheating. They got into an argument & he tried to leave to diffuse the situation by leaving. His wife grabbed him by the belt to keep him from leaving then grabbed his car keys. He grabbed his wife's hand to get his keys & she slapped him. He pushed her down on the couch, got his keys and left. He came back home hours later & the cops arrested him. His wife lied to the cops & they believed her. He did a plea in abeyance & was sentenced to a years probation & counseling. Cost him about 3K & had to give up his hunting rifles, which he eventually got back. Now, if a guy punches his wife in the face & is abusive, I can see the removal of guns. But, each DV is different and you can't remove their rights. Cops will tell you, when there's a DV call, someone's going to jail. And, they don't always get it right.