An Updated 2018 Concern
As your House Representative I will fight to maintain essential public services necessary for our public safety. Utahns cannot afford not to go without qualified personnel to respond to instances of crime or fires placing you at risk of serious injury or property loss. Hard budget decisions may be necessary, but public safety cannot be cutback at the expense of people's property or lives. If elected, I will seek to have public hearings held to hear from local police and fire departments about their difficulties in recruiting qualified candidates and find out what adequate funding levels are needed.
One former law enforcement officer stated last year (2019) that our communities have gone away from community policing which allows our lawn enforcement agencies to stay in close touch with residents.
A number of residents last year (2019) also questioned the wisdom of eliminating state inspections of vehicles. One mechanic warned that eventually many car owners whose cars aren't inspected will begin to experience tie rod deterioration to the point that drivers will be operating dangerous vehicle and losing conrol of where the vehicle goes.
SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT
I strongly support our United States Constitution. For intellectual interest, I occasionally read the actual text of U.S. Supreme Court decisions on important political issues. Even as a high school student when I was appointed to the Utah State School Superintendent's Student Rights and Responsibilities Committee my primary activity consisted of studying the United States Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court decisions on student free speech and student due process rights. In this position, I authored about two-thirds of the Utah State School Board's policy guidelines (1975) regarding these important rights.
As for the Second Amendment, I strongly adhere to the Supreme Court decision written by Justice Scalia in the 5 to 4 District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008) decision that upheld extending the Second Amendment right to individuals in addition to the state militia that overturned the total ban of handguns in the District of Columbia. As a "moderate" Democrat I am keeping an open mind with regards to various gun violence prevention proposals, but I will not automatically support any of them just because I am a Democrat. Justice Scalia provided in his written opinion a solid and persuasive historical argument about the importance for Americans to be able to choose to be able to defend their home against both criminals and, if necessary, the federal government.
I am for gun legislation to reduce public violence but at the same time I recognize that the Second Amendment likely requires any restriction on the use of arms by the State to be able to withstand the highest form of judicial review "strict scrutiny." The State would have to provide a compelling reason that is narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. It would have to demonstrate how any restrictions of the use of arms would necessarily accomplish a compelling state interest. As such the State would have the burden of proof that any restrictions would make a significant difference and that any such ban was carefully designed specifically to only accomplish what the State desired without unncessarily interfering in any other way an individual's fundamental rights. Unless the State is cautious in its approach to gun control, the State would have to spend and waste millions of dollars of the taxpayer attempting to win lawsuits in Federal Courts that are likely to fail.