Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: HB 50 Dating Violence on agenda for tomorrow, Wed 2/6

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006

    HB 50 Dating Violence on agenda for tomorrow, Wed 2/6

    Rep. Seelig's HB 50, Dating Violence bill expands the ability to get a protective order to those are merely in a "dating" relationship, as opposed to those who are married or otherwise legally family members.

    The bill would allow a judge to restrict a person's RKBA based merely on the request for a protective order and the relatively low legal standard of "clear and convincing"
    evidence that the order should be granted. RKBA would only be able to be restricted after the person is notified and given a chance appear in person and contest the order. But no criminal charges need to be filed, no arrest made, and not all of the usual protections afforded the accused in a criminal trial are present in these civil type hearings.

    Whether or not it is proper to extend protective orders to dating relationships is not an RKBA issue so I offer no opinion here.

    Whether or not it is proper to abridge a fundamental, constitutionally enumerated right without even an arrest/indictment/charge for criminal activity, nor trial or conviction for same is very much an RKBA issue and I strongly oppose the idea that our RKBA should be so easily taken from us.

    I encourage all to contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee (and your own legislators) to politely but firmly voice your opposition to this bill as it is currently written.

    Members of the committee are:

    Rep. Kay L. McIff, Chair
    Rep. Lee B. Perry, Vice Chair
    Rep. Patrice M. Arent
    Rep. LaVar Christensen
    Rep. Brian M. Greene
    Rep. Craig Hall
    Rep. Eric K. Hutchings
    Rep. Brian S. King
    Rep. V. Lowry Snow

    Contact info at

    Sample email/fax or talking points:

    Dear Rep xxx,

    I am writing to ask you to oppose HB 50, Dating Violence Protection Act. As currently written this bill would allow a judge to issue a protective order that would eliminate a person's right to own and possess firearms even though the person has not even been arrested for nor charged with any criminal act, much less actually convicted. If real crimes have been committed in a dating relationship, the perpetrator should be arrested for those crimes, charged, and given due process. Current law allows his rights to possess firearms to be restricted during the criminal process. There is no need to make it even easier to attack a person's constitutionally enumerated rights to legally possess firearms.

    Please oppose HB 50 unless it is amended to protect our rights to possess firearms.

    I would appreciate hearing how you intend to vote on this bill.

    Thank you.



  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    HB50 was passed out of committee favorably yesterday on a 9-0-0 vote.

    Yeas - 9
    Arent, P.
    Christensen, L.
    Greene, B.
    Hall, C.
    Hutchings, E.
    King, B.
    McIff, K.
    Perry, L.
    Snow, V. L.

    It is headed to the full House for a vote.

    From a recent GOUtah! alert:

    HB 50, an anti-gun bill, will be presented to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday 6 February during a meeting that will commence at 4:00 pm in Room 20 of the House Office Building (the granite building on the west side of the plaza directly behind the Capitol). Time will be allotted for members of the public to give brief comments about the bill.

    Hereís the text of the bill.

    HB 50 'provides for the issuance, modification, and enforcement of protective orders between parties who are, or who have been, in a dating relationship.' HB 50 would, among other things, empower a judge to strip you of your right to own a gun if he finds 'convincing evidence' that youíve committed or threatened to commit either 'dating violence' or 'abuse' against someone with whom you are or have been in a 'dating relationship'. The terms 'dating violence', 'abuse', and 'dating relationship' are very broadly defined in the bill.

    Thus, for example, if youíre a guy and a jilted ex-girlfriend complains to the authorities that you acted or spoke abusively or threateningly toward her a few months ago, a judge could unilaterally revoke your right to own a gun even though you havenít been charged with a crime, let alone been tried or convicted. If youíre a woman and jilted ex-boyfriend complains that you slapped him last year, a judge could strip you of your Second-Amendment rights without your having been charged with a crime of any sort.

    Thus, you could be stripped of your right to own a gun and your right to self-defense without having even been charged with a crime.

    Please go to the Action Item at the end of this Alert to help kill this bill.

    Dear Representative :

    As a Utah gun owner, Iím opposed to HB 50 because it would empower a judge to unilaterally strip a person of his 2nd-Amendment rights without anything remotely approaching an appropriate level of due process. An individual could be stripped of his right to possess a firearm (including self-defense weapons) without having even been charged with a crime, let alone tried or convicted.

    I therefore encourage you to oppose HB 50.

    Thanks for taking time to consider my views on this matter.

    Best regards,

Posting Permissions

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