Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: URGENT!!! HB 473 moving today. Make calls now or lose OC on all colleges forever.

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Apparently the board of regents and other ivory tower elites are
    pushing for this and Senate Leadership and too many senators are
    caving to their demands. Of course, the U refuses to debate this
    publicly in committee and prefers to push stuff through under cover of
    the last few hours of the session with no public input.

    Urge your Senators and Leadership to send this issue to interim where
    it can be properly studied with public comments.

    Just heard that Senate Leadership, including Senate Majority Leader
    Curt Bramble is leaning hard on Waddoups and plans to bring HB 473 up
    for a vote over his objections. It is very rare to force a vote on a
    bill over the objections of the sponsor.

    As presently constituted, HB 473 represents a major capitulation to
    the anti-gun zealots at the UoU as it would ban all open display of
    firearms at "post secondary institutions." The language doing this
    was drafted in haste and I believe has a number of unintended and
    undesirable consequences beyond just banning open carry in classrooms.
    For example, no exception is made for private areas like dorm rooms
    or restrooms stalls. Under a strict reading of this bill, it will be
    illegal not to conceal a firearm on your person even when inside your
    own dorm room or while using a restroom stall.

    Please, call the Senate and leave a message for your own Senator
    asking him to vote AGAINST HB 473. Also call and leave a message for
    Sen. President Valentine and Senate Majority Leader Bramble asking
    them not to bring this bill out of rules. It needs to be sent to interim for study. No reason to act in haste so late in the session.

    Messages for all Senators, including Senate President Valentine and
    Majority Leader Bramble can be left by calling (801) 538-1035. You
    can leave a message for several senators with a single phone call, so
    be sure to send a message to your own senator as well as to President
    Valentine and Majority Leader Bramble.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  2. #2
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Success!! :celebrate HB 473 as amended is officially dead!
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    Success!! :celebrate HB 473 as amended is officially dead!
    Amen. Our thanks to Sen. Mike Waddoups for his explemplary efforts in keeping it off the floor. And to all those who called and let the Senate and Senate leadership know they were being watched.

    NOW, we need to start pushing AG Mark Shurtleff to issue an official opinion on this matter to clear it up.

    Even more importantly, be sure to attend the neighborhood caucas in a couple weeks on Tuesday, March 25th. My suggestion, especially if your rep or senator was not rock solid on RKBA, is to attend the caucas of whatever party that rep or senator belongs to. Take some friends and get elected a delegate.

    Also, be sure to contact friends and family and encourage them to get to these caucas meetings to run as and/or support pro-RKBA candidates for delegate position. This is especially important in St. George and here in SLCo in District 49. These are where Reps Urquhart and Speaker Curtis reside and they must be challenged in convention and we need delegates who will vote against them for killing parking lot pre-emption, and so actively hijacking HB 473.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, ,
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    Good to know they let it die.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Looks like someone at the Trib figured the fix was in. An article today reports that HB 473 passed. But I watched it not come up for vote last night and have double checked its status page this AM to find that the enacting clause was struck; a sure sign it died. I remind all that the house vote on HB 473, after being amended is not really a very good metric of who supported and who attacked us. The most accurate measure of tha is the vote to adopt Urquhart's hostile amendment. That was only a 41-29-5. That vote can be found on page 2025 of the House Journals (day 43) this year at http://www.livepublish.le.state.ut.u...-j.htm&2.0.
    As is traditional, the speaker did not vote on this, but was a known strong supporter of the hostile amendment and did take the unusual step of voting for the final, anti-gun version of the bill. Therefore, I believe his name should be included among those who voted to hurt gun rights on the vote below.

    A "Yea" vote is anti-gun. A no vote was supporting our rights. REMEMBER who voted to hurt us and let's start finding challengers to these Reps and make sure to turn out pro-gun friends, family, and neighbors to the caucas on the 25th of this month (tuesday).

    Charles

    Yeas, 41; Nays, 29; Absent or not voting, 5.
    Voting in the affirmative were: Representatives (These reps need to feel political pain in convention, primary, and the general election, REGARDLESS of party affiliaition or what else they may have done over the session.)

    Aagard Allen Andersen Barrus Bigelow Bird Biskupski Brown Chavez-Houck D. Clark S. Clark Cosgrove Dee Draxler Dunnigan Ferry Janice Fisher Froerer Gowans Hemingway Holdaway Hunsaker Hutchings Johnson King Last Litvack Mascaro McGee Menlove Morgan Moss Neuenschwander Riesen Seelig Snow Urquhart(Sponsor of the amendment and also responsible for killing our good parking lot gun bill) Webb Wheatley Wiley Winn [add Speaker Curtis here as he made his intentions very clear behind the scenes and on the final vote and also had a role in killing our good parking lot bill]

    Voting in the negative were: Representatives
    Daw Donnelson Dougall Duckworth Julie Fisher Fowlke Frank Garn Gibson Greenwood Grover Hansen Harper Hendrickson Herrod Hughes Kiser Mathis Morley Newbold Noel Oda Painter Ray Sandstrom(Sandstrom was a CHAMPION for our rights as he spoke strongly and eloquently against this amendment, he needs our support this election) Sumsion Tilton Walker Wimmer

    Absent or not voting were: Representatives
    Bowman Lockhart McIff Shurtliff Curtis [Do not give Curtis a pass here. He definately supported this hostile amendment.]


    http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8472454

    Gun owners, colleges both win
    The Salt Lake Tribune
    Article Last Updated:03/06/2008 02:21:42 AM MST

    The gun debate on Capitol Hill was less contentious this year than previous ones, and both universities and firearms owners won concessions in the fight.
    Concealed-weapon permit holders received confirmation that they can openly carry their guns in nearly every public space, including sporting venues and hospitals. However, they cannot do so on college campuses. The bill also says permit holders would not be punished for accidentally or unintentionally showing their weapon.
    The outcome came as a relief to college administrators, who worried that exposed guns in classrooms would make it difficult to recruit and retain faculty.
    Lawmakers also adopted a bill stating that the government cannot infringe on gun-owners' rights during a state of emergency.
    Another bill that attempted to put Second Amendment rights above private-property rights was shelved in the House. The measure would have allowed concealed-weapon permit holders to keep their guns in their cars while at work or shopping, regardless of private policies banning the firearms.
    - Sheena McFarland


    http://le.utah.gov/~2008/status/hbillsta/hb0473.htm

    H.B. 473 Firearms Amendments (Oda, C.)

    Date Action Location Vote
    2/1/2008 Bill Numbered by Title Without any Substance LRGC
    2/1/2008 Numbered Bill Made Available for Public Distributi LRGC
    2/1/2008 Bill Numbered by Title Without any Substance LRGC
    2/7/2008 Bill Numbered but not Distributed LRGC
    2/7/2008 Numbered Bill Made Available for Public Distributi LRGC
    2/7/2008 LFA/ bill assigned to staff for fiscal analysis LRGC
    2/7/2008 LFA/ bill sent to agencies for fiscal input LRGC
    2/7/2008 House/ received from General Counsel HDOCKET
    2/8/2008 House/ read 1st time (Introduced) HSTRUL
    2/11/2008 LFA/ fiscal note sent to sponsor HSTRUL
    2/11/2008 LFA/ fiscal note sent to floor HSTRUL
    2/11/2008 House/ to Printing with fiscal note HSTRUL
    2/12/2008 House/ received bill with fiscal note from Print HSTRUL
    2/14/2008 House/ to standing committee HSTLAW
    2/18/2008 House Comm - Favorable Recommendation HSTLAW 9 0 2
    2/19/2008 House/ committee report favorable HSTLAW
    2/19/2008 House/ read 2nd time H3RDHB
    2/22/2008 House/ 3rd Reading Calendar to Rules Committee HSTRUL
    2/27/2008 House/ Rules Committee to 3rd Reading Calendar H3RDHB
    2/29/2008 House/ make Special Order HSPEC
    3/3/2008 House/ read 3rd time HSPEC
    3/3/2008 House/ amended HSPEC
    3/3/2008 House/ passed 3rd reading SSEC 60 11 4
    3/3/2008 House/ to Senate SSEC
    3/3/2008 Senate/ received from House SINTRO
    3/3/2008 Senate/ read 1st (Introduced) SSTRUL
    3/5/2008 Senate/ enacting clause struck HCLERK
    3/5/2008 Senate/ to House HCLERK
    3/5/2008 House/ filed HFILE
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    So was the bill defeated? Yes or no - I am very confused.

  7. #7
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    It is DEAD!!! :celebrate:celebrate It was shelved in the senate, and left to collect dust.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    It is DEAD!!! :celebrate:celebrate It was shelved in the senate, and left to collect dust.
    Sheena the reporter just called me to confirm the death! :celebrate

    Now we have the informal opinion of the Ag in news print that open carry is lawful for CHP holders - that should be enough for now!

  9. #9
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    Sheena the reporter just called me to confirm the death! :celebrate

    Now we have the informal opinion of the Ag in news print that open carry is lawful for CHP holders - that should be enough for now!
    The Tribune article is now gone! You talked to the reporter? Where is this news print about the AG opinion?
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  10. #10
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    You talked to the reporter? Where is this news print about the AG opinion?
    Yes - i called her, and she called me back confirming that the bill is actually dead. She may contact me again for contact info for Utah OCers wanting to discuss the issue.

    I recall a recent news item quoting the AG as saying this bill would codify what he thought was the law already - I do not have cite - maybe you or the Utah folks can find it and post here??

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Layton, Utah, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    That is awesome guys. I made calls yesterday to try to help put an end to it.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    West Jordan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    Does anybody know what prompted the bill in the first place? In hindsight it was obviously risky, and did not seem to be necessary anyway.

    But then again, maybe having it codified into law will make it harder to infringe upon in the future.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    I recall a recent news item quoting the AG as saying this bill would codify what he thought was the law already - I do not have cite - maybe you or the Utah folks can find it and post here??
    oops - I stand corrected - UT AG chose his words carefully:

    --

    http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8310247
    Bill would allow concealed-weapons permit holders to carry firearms openly
    Salt Lake Tribune: Bill would allow concealed-weapons permit holders to carry firearms openly

    By Brian Maffly
    The Salt Lake Tribune
    Article Last Updated:02/20/2008 06:58:24 AM


    A bill quietly endorsed by a legislative committee would codify licensed concealed-weapons holders' ability to openly carry loaded guns in almost any publicly owned space in Utah, including university campuses, public schools, sports arenas and hospitals. . . . Attorney General Mark Shurtleff spoke at the hearing, saying existing weapons laws can reasonably be read to both allow and prohibit open-carry on school grounds.
    "I'm not taking a side," Shurtleff said in a Tuesday interview. "You just can't have different agencies interpreting the law differently. It should be clarified so everyone reads it the same way."


    --

    But, think about it - the billwas amended a 2d time to restrict the open carry ban just to colleges - therefore, this assumes that OC is legal across UT now, and there is no inherent risk of a crime for printing or incidentially exposing your gun. - Mike S.


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    West Jordan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    I just don't get it. CFP holders are specifically exempted from current laws that restrict carry of weapons on or about schools. How can the law reasonably be read to prohibit open carry on school grounds?

    In the past I've always ignored those with the opinion that is was subject to interpretation, but there must be something I'm missing for the AG to make that statement.


    (edited for spelling)

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    althor wrote:
    I just don't get it. CFP holders are specifically exempted from currents laws that restrict carry of weapons on or about schools. How can the law reasonably be read to prohibit open carry on school grounds?

    In the past I've always ignored those with the opinion that is was subject to interpretation, but there must be something I'm missing for the AG to make that statement.
    Nothin' is missing - he does not want to say OC is legal - they wanted to trade OC clarification for OC restriction on college campuses. Just Politics.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    [SNIP] NOW, we need to start pushing AG Mark Shurtleff to issue an official opinion on this matter to clear it up.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the legislature had to ask the AG for any official opinions...

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    Thanks to everybody for calling and getting it defeated after the poisen pill was added.

    Thanks especially to GOUtah!



  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    jaredbelch wrote:
    utbagpiper wrote:
    [SNIP] NOW, we need to start pushing AG Mark Shurtleff to issue an official opinion on this matter to clear it up.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the legislature had to ask the AG for any official opinions...
    Officially, a government agency (like the legislature, UoU, or some county sherrif) has to ask.

    But politics is politics and the AG can find a way to issue an opinion when he really needs to.

    As I always say, when it comes to gun laws, the penalties are too high for there to be any confusion. We need clarity.

    And the AG says about the same thing. Since the legislature has declined to provide that clarity via law, the AG as chief LEO in Utah should issue some guidance to all police officers and departments that look to him for guidance.

    charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    Since the legislature has declined to provide that clarity via law, the AG as chief LEO in Utah should issue some guidance to all police officers and departments that look to him for guidance.

    charles
    But is there confusion? Are permit holders being arrested/prosecuted for OCing a loaded handgun in utah?

  20. #20
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    To my knowledge, no. The whole issue is to clarify that students can open carry on campus.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Mike, let me clarify what exactly is going on here. Back in 2006, the University of Utah lost the court battle in the state courts when the Utah Supreme Court ruled that state law reigned supreme over the universities "rights". That began the battle with SB251, which would have given the University the power to ban gun carry on college campuses. It passed one house before being fought to a standstill. GOUtah has some pretty good alerts from that time period. University of Utah did not get what it wanted.

    During that time, the University of Utah hired it's own outside legal counsel for specifically dealing with that issue. In 2006, University of Utah, via the publications department, stated a temporary suspension of it, but stated that the firearms must be concealed. I sent an email to Coralie Alder, the writer of the posting, advising her that the University's position is completely incorrect on the subject. I didn't hear anything back from here except for a "we'll work with the AG's office over it".

    In 2007, since the issue was no longer in contention, the University started using the AG's office again as it's sole legal counsel.

    In 2007, several students (with the newly formed "Second Amendment Students" organization) with the University of Utah wanted to celebrate the SB251 victory by open carrying their defensive handguns (which by definition of law is legal, regardless of the recent news events and alerts stating otherwise). They approached the administration and told them of the law, and just to keep the issues to a minimum.

    University of Utah PD, along with the administration, told them that they would arrest them and have them expelled. When challenged by this, the University started telling the students that they had an attorney general's opinion telling them basically that because it's a "concealed firearm permit", only concealed carry is allowed and it's illegal in school zones to open carry due to it being "outside of the scope of the license".

    Now, the thing about Utah's definitions of school zones is that it's actually more expansive than federal law. This includes K-12 AND post secondary institutions, and within 1000 feet of the grounds thereof.

    The Assistant AG who wrote the opinion was in the AG's "educational division", and what's funny about this particular assistant AG was that he used to work for the University of Utah. Rather than immediately reprimanding and/or firing the assistant AG for destroying some of the preemptive work that Senator Waddoups and many others have done, AG Shurtleff went to the Legislature to make it even more crystal clear that open carry was allowed. The University was suprised by this development, supposedly.

    Then, that's what the threats started. The University, from my understanding, started threatening the Legislature with another federal lawsuit. Their ridiculous claim was that open carry would be a slam dunk win for them winning the right to "ban guns" using a federal court decree because open carry supposedly destroys the first amendment rights of students and teachers who would be afraid to speak their opinions or grade assignments fairly.

    The House of Representatives, led by the House Speaker and Rep. Urquart, decided to cave into the University, and put in their hastily drafted amendment that was likely drafted by the University officials themselves. It passed the House.

    Word got spread out everywhere possible, and gunnies all over the state, and some out of state, started calling the Senate leadership, along with Senator Waddoups (who was the primary sponsor of shall-issue in 1995, and sponsor of the bill which expicitly brought all state agencies under the state preemption statute). Senator Waddoups stopped the bill, despite tremendous amount of pressure to cave. Waddoups stood his ground, and the bill died.

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    jaredbelch wrote:
    utbagpiper wrote:
    [SNIP] NOW, we need to start pushing AG Mark Shurtleff to issue an official opinion on this matter to clear it up.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the legislature had to ask the AG for any official opinions...
    [SNIP] Officially, a government agency (like the legislature, UoU, or some county sherrif) has to ask.

    But politics is politics and the AG can find a way to issue an opinion when he really needs to.
    That makes sense, I guess if enough of us sent him an email or letter, and called his office from time to time he would be "forced" to provide us with an official opinion.


    Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff Contact Info

    http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/contact.html
    General Office Numbers: (801) 366-0260, (801) 538-9600, (801) 366-0300
    Toll Free within the State of Utah: (800) AG4 INFO (244-4636)
    E-Mail:
    uag@utah.gov

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    Mike, let me clarify what exactly is going on here. . . .
    I am well aware of all this - but there appears to be no ongoing practice or even clear threat of arrest by Utah law enforcement agencies for OC of loaded guns by permit holders. Asking for an opinion is asking for trouble - big downside.

    As for a federal court overturning a state preemption law for OC because the college or college community's free speach rights would be implicated by OC is simply absurd - a state college has no independent right exist as a matter of federal Constitutional law - it is merely a creation of the state - further, the banning of open carry by a college is itself impinging on the expressive conduct rights of students who wish to OC.

    Be careful what you ask for - AGs are political creatures and will bend the law to their own ends - then you have to get a court opinion to overturn it - very expensive.

Posting Permissions

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