Utah Lawmaker says, stop harrasing defensive carry.

Utah Lawmaker says, stop harrasing defensive carry.

This is a discussion on Utah Lawmaker says, stop harrasing defensive carry. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Utah State Rep. Paul Ray has submitted HB 49 in order to clarify some firearms issues. In its proposed format, it declares that a firearm ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Utah Lawmaker says, stop harrasing defensive carry.

  1. #1
    Member Array SamF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    49

    Utah Lawmaker says, stop harrasing defensive carry.

    Utah State Rep. Paul Ray has submitted HB 49 in order to clarify some firearms issues.

    In its proposed format, it declares that a firearm whether visible or concealed does not constitute disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, disrupting a school function, or any number of similar ordinances. The list of statues declared not a violation is quite extensive. Policies at the University of Utah and Utah Valley University that charge people for disruption or disorderly conduct will be voided. BYU, a private university, may also have to allow carry on campus. It also appears that an open business or store cannot trespass you for carrying since that is the only ordinance they can use here to remove you from their property.

    It also reaffirms that the state legislature is the only body that can regulate firearms unless specific delegation of authority is granted (currently only municipalities can only regulate the discharge of a firearm) and requires any local authority to cite the statutes that grants them the authority to regulate dangerous weapons and voids any law not in compliance.

    It's a shame to see this kind of legislation but it does put oppressive schools and local governments on notice and allows us to carry without worrying if we will be harassed for it.
    baren and Eagleks like this.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Hiram25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wyoming, DE
    Posts
    11,197
    I see nothing wrong with it. Provided you are legal, behaving in a legal manner you do not constitute a threat!
    atctimmy and Knightrider like this.
    Hiram25
    You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
    Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
    dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,106
    I like everything except the part that tells private businesses whether they can allow you to carry or not. In my view that is a violation of private property rights. If you don't want to allow guns on YOUR property, then you should be free to do so. Those who find this too offensive are free to not come onto your property. Otherwise though, sounds like an excellent piece of legislation.

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    I like everything except the part that tells private businesses whether they can allow you to carry or not. In my view that is a violation of private property rights. If you don't want to allow guns on YOUR property, then you should be free to do so. Those who find this too offensive are free to not come onto your property. Otherwise though, sounds like an excellent piece of legislation.
    I don't read it that private businesses must allow guns, just that they can't charge someone with trespass just for legally carrying. But, IANAL
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  5. #5
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,106
    Quote Originally Posted by zacii View Post
    I don't read it that private businesses must allow guns, just that they can't charge someone with trespass just for legally carrying. But, IANAL
    What about if they ask someone to leave because they have a gun and that isn't allowed? Do they still not get to charge them with trespass even though they make it clear they're not welcome? Is it the case without this law that they could sometimes just charge someone with trespass by virtue of having a gun when they didn't want that on their property? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know (as you can see I'm stuck in commie-MD here where it isn't an issue anyway since virtually no one can carry anywhere).

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    What about if they ask someone to leave because they have a gun and that isn't allowed? Do they still not get to charge them with trespass even though they make it clear they're not welcome? Is it the case without this law that they could sometimes just charge someone with trespass by virtue of having a gun when they didn't want that on their property? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know (as you can see I'm stuck in commie-MD here where it isn't an issue anyway since virtually no one can carry anywhere).
    I know that as the law stands now, a property owner may press trespassing charges against someone carrying a gun on their property, if they refuse to leave or disarm.

    How this law appears to be written (to me, anyway) is that a property owner could still charge someone with trespassing, but lawfully carrying a gun, is not a sufficient reason.

    I don't understand where they're coming from, though. I thought property owners had a right to discriminate without reason. Unless, of course, you're one of those 'protected classes' of people
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  7. #7
    Member Array SamF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    49
    The difference comes in whether the business is open to the general public or not. Stores like Shopco and Sam's Club have restricted membership and could impose rules for membership but most stores have open access and cede most property rights when they invite the general public in as customers. A store owner cannot claim an expectation of privacy in the middle of his open store. Nor should he be allowed to deny someone else their right to defense when he has extended an open invitation to all.

  8. #8
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,309
    Quote Originally Posted by SamF View Post
    The difference comes in whether the business is open to the general public or not. Stores like Shopco and Sam's Club have restricted membership and could impose rules for membership but most stores have open access and cede most property rights when they invite the general public in as customers. A store owner cannot claim an expectation of privacy in the middle of his open store. Nor should he be allowed to deny someone else their right to defense when he has extended an open invitation to all.
    Not true. Customers are invitees, just as visitors to a private home are. A business or property owner has the same rights as a homeowner. Any business can set hours of when you may visit, and ask to you leave. Membership, or open to the general public, has no bearing on whether or not guns are allowed.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  9. #9
    Member Array SamF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    49
    There is a big difference between an open invitation to a store for all and a private invitation for specified people in a private home. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that a private home still has an expectation of privacy while an open store does not. Declaring when a location is open or closed has no bearing on who can and cannot come when it is open. A business owner does have the same property rights as a home owner but waves many of them when he extends an open invitation in a similar way a property owner waves rights by selling an easement.

  10. #10
    Distinguished Member Array jumpwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1,271
    Similarities aside, I believe a proprietor can ask someone to leave his establishment without providing any reason whatsoever. Failure to vacate should constitute criminal trespass. The person being evicted has to prove the reason (race, for example) in order to win a civil suit.

    However, I don't own a business and I'm not a lawyer in any state.

    At any rate, I don't like government getting involved at that level. We gun owners have money to spend and the means to communicate which stores are anti-gun; it should be enough to "speak with your dollars" by shopping elsewhere and let the process of capitalism work it all out.

    As for schools: ANY school eligible to receive federal money (student loans, fed grants, Dept of Edu money) should be barred from violating a student's civil rights. If they want to make it an entirely private institution then that's another story.
    peckman28 likes this.
    "The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    cafepress.com/bgstudios

  11. #11
    Member Array SamF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    49
    In Utah, Criminal Trespass requires proof that the trespasser is hindering normal operations. There have been occasions where people carrying have been asked to leave and threatened with Criminal Trespass if they did not leave. I do not know of any situation where someone has be charged or convicted. This Bill would declare that the mere presence of a gun, minus any threatening action, is not grounds for Criminal Trespass. Most people I know, myself included, would let our money do our talking elsewhere.

    The bill appears to be a response the actions taken by the University of Utah over the past couple years. They first declared that the school was a gun free zone but the AG quickly reprimanded them due to our preemption law. Since they could not charge anyone for possessing a gun on campus they established a policy to charge them with disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and disrupting school activities. It all came to a head when a campus police officer and security guard were placed on suspension for disseminating the policy. They quickly withdrew the policy after the uproar is caused but other schools have made similar threats. In the OP I said it was a shame to see this bill, not because it's bad, but because it shouldn't and wouldn't be a problem without officials enforcing opinion over law.
    TheGiant likes this.

  12. #12
    Distinguished Member Array jumpwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1,271
    Quote Originally Posted by SamF View Post
    ...it shouldn't and wouldn't be a problem without officials enforcing opinion over law.
    True, true.
    "The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    cafepress.com/bgstudios

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array TonyDTrigger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    863
    Quote Originally Posted by SamF View Post
    Utah State Rep. Paul Ray has submitted HB 49 It also reaffirms that the state legislature is the only body that can regulate firearms unless specific delegation of authority is granted (currently only municipalities can only regulate the discharge of a firearm) and requires any local authority to cite the statutes that grants them the authority to regulate dangerous weapons and voids any law not in compliance.
    Florida has had a similar regulation for a while but the municipalities were totally ignoring the law because there were no penalties. This year a new law was passed imposing fines to those polititians and others directly involved in the violations, and as if by magic the municipalities started obeying the law.

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array TN_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shelby County TN
    Posts
    11,133
    Utah has some very good gun laws from what I can tell. I'd move there. It's an awful long way from my side of the family though......so that makes it even more desirable.
    ,=====o00o _
    //___l__,\____\,__
    l_--- \___l---[]lllllll[]
    (o)_)-o- (o)_)--o-)_)

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,767
    There is another side to this issue, outside of private property issues.

    I know for a fact that in the St. George area, the local law enforcement will ticket people who OC, if they're responding to a MWAG call. A law like this may make them think twice.


    It is SGPD policy to discourage open carry. It's an image thing, they have lots of retirees and tourists. They want to placate the little old ladies who are scared of the guys carrying guns.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

hb 49 and utah
,
hb 49 utah results
,
stop hb 49 utah
,
utah
,
utah criminal trespass on byu campus
,
utah gun laws and trespassing
,
utah trespass gun laws
,

who is utah's senior law maker?

Click on a term to search for related topics.