Utah County bans guns due to fire hazard?!!! What a way to celebrate our freedoms! On the day we celebrate our freedoms as Americans, the second amendment goes under attack within a County and State where the elected people you would think should be principled enough to know better. I'm from Cache County (I wouldn't put it past them ether) and believe me if they ever pulled a stunt like this, there would be HE** to pay. There are very good grounds to fight this on a constitutional basis! Notice where they also say “there's no date yet as to when the ban expires.” How convenient for them to abuse the constitution, only to say when we (power hungry law makers) feel good that you know we are in charge, then maybe will stop the ban.

This whole thing about guns starting fires is BS. I have fired so many thousands of rounds from .22 to .50 cal, and never caused a fire. We are talking about lead here! What a crock and piss poor excuse to destroy peoples freedoms. I'm telling you, freedom is not just under attack from abroad, it is under heavy attack right here in Utah within our State, County and Municipal government. From simple things such as fireworks to fundamental rights such as private property and guns, you name it and our friendly elected people who claim to be religious will attack it! Don't get me wrong, I'm an active member of the predominant religion here in Utah, it's just that these elected people who claim to also be a member don't echo any principles of liberty or freedom that I was taught. I don't recognize any of their policy as anything the church values. In fact, much of the policy enacted today here locally is reminiscent of the exact policy that inspired the signing of the Declaration of Independence!

How do these (wolfs in sheep's clothing) communist/socialist dictators get elected?! Their voting record will show their true colors. It's time to start a movement to vote them all out of office and put some true patriots in office who emulate the founders and who understand what July 4th really means!!!

The story is found here:  http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=1431851

 

76-10-500. Uniform law. State of Utah

(2) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms.

Essentially every city in the state (and country) has an ordinance on the books regarding the usage of firearms. Note that these do not in any way restrict the ownership of them, but it limits where, when, and/or how they can be used. For example, Logan City has the following law:

I'm not the right person to research the nuances of Utah's legislative delegation, but I would guess that either firearms are covered by laws that don't pertain to them directly (the above law is a noise ordinance, not a gun control ordinance) or that the power to regulate the use of firearms (not the ownership) has been delegated to cities (and counties, where no incorporated city exists).

There's more to discharging a firearm than lead. While controlled experiments have failed to ignite things due to bullet strikes (despite the sparks that you see in movies), it is still possible to start a fire with a gun.

I can't find any response to this statement that isn't deeply hypocritical.

Fiery Darts hit the nail on the head. The power of cities to regulate firearms is limited to regulating their use. That's how cities are able to pass discharge ordinances and the like without incurring state ire. The section from the Utah Code quoted above should be read in context. See Utah Code 63-98-102 found at: http://www.livepublish.le.state.ut.us/lpBin22/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-j.htm&2.0.

When read in context, it is clear that that section is referring to the ownership and possession of firearms, not their use.

To me it seems that wildfires are such a deep concern that cities should be allowed to take more extreme measures to prevent them. It's been argued that the recent fire in Farmington was started by firearms. While the claim is probably bunk, it is nevertheless within the power of the city to prohibit the discharge of firearms within city limits.