You know, I've never heard a conservative or even a raging libertarian scream about that dang government when a burn ban is ordered. They had one in Texas the last time I visited my brother, and you know what contrarians those Lone Star Staters can be. Hey, ain't had no rain in months, a fire would spread like crazy, so no burning. When a government edict intersects with common sense, it doesn't raise much of a fuss. Apparently common sense is in short supply in Utah:
Forest fires might be raging this season, but they haven’t yet generated enough heat for Utah’s government to ask for much more than a little self-regulation from gun owners.
What is reportedly the 20th target shooting-related wildfire this year in the state has led to the evacuation of 2,300 families and the loss of electricity to 7,000 homes in Northern Utah. The Bureau of Land Management believes the latest blaze was caused by a bullet hitting a rock during target practice. It’s one of an estimated 380 human-caused wildfires out of 400 in 2012 alone.
While a statewide ban on using ammo with steel in it on private and state land has been issued, current law in the state bars sheriffs from banning firearms. Governor Gary Herbert asked gun owners to exercise better judgment while choosing when and where, to shoot firearms.
In Indiana as well:
Faced with what could be the driest June in history — and the potential for significant fire danger — officials in a growing number of Indiana counties have temporarily banned the use of fireworks.
But if they continue to do so, they could end up running afoul of a state law that, in essence, prohibits fireworks bans around the Fourth of July.
Banning fireworks bans. What "home rule" nonsense was that you were spouting?