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

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

imported post

Success!! :celebrate:monkey HB 473 as amended is officially dead!

imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:

Success!! :celebrate:monkey HB 473 as amended is officially dead!

Click to expand...

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

imported post

Good to know they let it die.

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.us/lpBin22/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-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

imported post

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

imported post

It is DEAD!!! :celebrate:monkey:celebrate It was shelved in the senate, and left to collect dust.

imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:

It is DEAD!!! :celebrate:monkey:celebrate It was shelved in the senate, and left to collect dust.

Click to expand...

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!

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!

Click to expand...

The Tribune article is now gone! You talked to the reporter? Where is this news print about the AG opinion?

imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:

You talked to the reporter? Where is this news print about the AG opinion?

Click to expand...

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??

imported post

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

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.

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??

Click to expand...

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 TribuneArticle 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.

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)

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the legislature had to ask the AG for any official opinions...

imported post

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

Thanks especially to GOUtah!

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.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the legislature had to ask the AG for any official opinions...

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

imported post

To my knowledge, no. The whole issue is to clarify that students can open carry on campus.