He says it’s directed at “gun violence”, OK Good, but since it’s done at the will of the DA can it morph into “gun possession”? Seems like what he’s saying is since we haven’t been enforcing the laws we need to amp it up a bit.
On another note, in the article, the number of stolen guns, taken from cars and homes, should stand as a reminder to all of us.
What’s his political background? Any ties to Soros?
The reason I ask is here in the Chicago area we’ve got the Cook County States Attorney is deeply indebted to those people and the way she’s going about determining cases is…a little hinkey to say the least.
Probably not as simple as that, since I don’t think “gun possession” is a crime for most Utah residents. But as a politician who probably has some kind of history, the neighborhood probably has an idea whether this means “tough on crime” or “tough on guns”.
That pretty much will give you an idea of his agenda, hidden or not.
How do you say in American…? It’s a damn TRAP!
DON’T TRUST ANYONE! This should be standard operating procedures going forward. If they are reporting it, it’s false, or there’s an ulterior motive!
If they really do want to crack down on c rime I am all for it. I would really like to be able to quit carrying all of the time. I don’t know about anyone else but it would be nice to feel safe when I go someplace. I don’t see that happening anytime soon though.
The term “gun violence” is what bothers me. If they said “crime committed with a gun” that would be different. The first one sounds like they are blaming the gun the second it is the criminal that is blamed and that is a big difference at least to me.
He’s a Democrat. He usually rules in favor of the police, in fact I think in the last few years he has ruled “Justified” on just about every police involved shooting. After he won election he filed criminal charges against his opponents. In one case all of the charges were dropped, in the other case the guy was found Not Guilty on all charges.