Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: new Utah gun law... takes effect today..

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    32

    Post imported post

    .B. 157 Enrolled
    1
    RIGHTS OF CITIZENS TO CARRY
    2
    FIREARMS IN DECLARED EMERGENCY

    3
    2008 GENERAL SESSION
    4
    STATE OF UTAH
    5
    Chief Sponsor: Mark B. Madsen
    6
    House Sponsor: Carl Wimmer
    7
    8 LONG TITLE
    9 General Description:
    10 This bill enacts provisions related to the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transport,
    11 storage, display, or use of firearms during a declared state of emergency or local
    12 emergency.
    13 Highlighted Provisions:
    14 This bill:
    15 .provides that during a declared state of emergency or local emergency neither the
    16 governor nor an agency of a governmental entity or political subdivision may impose
    17 restrictions on the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transport, storage, display, or use
    18 of a firearm or ammunition;
    19 .provides that during a declared state of emergency an individual, while acting or
    20 purporting to act on behalf of the state or a political subdivision, may not confiscate
    21 a privately owned firearm of another individual;
    22 .provides exceptions to the confiscation prohibition; and
    23 .provides a civil remedy for violation of the confiscation prohibition.
    24 Monies Appropriated in this Bill:
    25 None
    26 Other Special Clauses:
    27 None
    28 Utah Code Sections Affected:
    29 ENACTS:


    [line]
    30
    63-5a-12, Utah Code Annotated 1953
    31
    32 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
    33 Section 1. Section 63-5a-12 is enacted to read:
    34 63-5a-12. Prohibition of restrictions on and confiscation of a firearm or
    35 ammunition during an emergency.
    36 (1) As used in this section:
    37 (a) (i) "Confiscate" means for an individual in Utah to intentionally deprive another of a
    38 privately owned firearm.
    39 (ii) "Confiscate" does not include the taking of a firearm from an individual:
    40 (A) in self-defense;
    41 (B) possessing a firearm while the individual is committing a felony or misdemeanor; or
    42 (C) who may not, under state or federal law, possess the firearm.
    43 (b) "Firearm" has the same meaning as defined in Subsection 76-10-501 (9).
    44 (2) During a declared state of emergency or local emergency under this chapter:
    45 (a) neither the governor nor an agency of a governmental entity or political subdivision
    46 of the state may impose restrictions, which were not in force prior to the declared state of
    47 emergency, on the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transport, storage, display, or use of a
    48 firearm or ammunition; and
    49 (b) an individual, while acting or purporting to act on behalf of the state or a political
    50 subdivision of the state, may not confiscate a privately owned firearm of another individual.
    51 (3) A law or regulation passed during a declared state of emergency that does not relate
    52 specifically to the lawful possession or use of a firearm and that has attached criminal penalties
    53 may not be used to justify the confiscation of a firearm from an individual acting in defense of
    54 self, property, or others when on:
    55 (a) the individual's private property; or
    56 (b) the private property of another as an invitee.
    57 (4) (a) An individual who has a firearm confiscated in violation of Subsection (2) may


    [line]
    58
    bring a civil action in a court having the appropriate jurisdiction:
    59 (i) for damages, in the maximum amount of $10,000, against a person who violates
    60 Subsection (2);
    61 (ii) for a civil penalty, in the amount of $5,000 per violation, against a person who
    62 violates Subsection (2); and
    63 (iii) for return of the confiscated firearm.
    64 (b) As used in this Subsection (4), "person" means an individual, the governmental
    65 entity on whose behalf the individual is acting or purporting to act, or both the individual and
    66 the governmental entity.
    67 (5) (a) A law enforcement officer shall not be subject to disciplinary action for refusing
    68 to confiscate a firearm under this section if:
    69 (i) ordered or directed to do so by a superior officer; and
    70 (ii) by obeying the order or direction, the law enforcement officer would be committing
    71 a violation of this section.
    72 (b) For purposes of this Subsection (5), disciplinary action might include:
    73 (i) dismissal, suspension, or demotion;
    74 (ii) loss of or decrease in benefits, pay, privileges or conditions of employment; and
    75 (iii) any type of written or electronic indication, permanent or temporary, on the
    76 officer's personnel record of the officer's refusal to obey the unlawful order.
    77 (6) (a) If a law enforcement officer commits a violation of this section, the officer's
    78 liability in an action brought under Subsection (4)(a) is limited to 5% of the damages and civil
    79 penalty allowed under Subsection (4)(a) if the officer can show by clear and convincing
    80 evidence that the officer was obeying a direct and unlawful order from a superior officer or
    81 authority.
    82 (b) The balance of the damages and civil penalty, the remaining 95%, shall be assessed
    83 against the superior officer or authority who ordered or directed the confiscation in violation of
    84 this section.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Payson, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,146

    Post imported post

    lol i tried makin out what this means but i couldnt catch a few things from the layout...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    b1ack5mith wrote:
    lol i tried makin out what this means but i couldnt catch a few things from the layout...
    The little I can get out from it is, that this is a "Katrina" bill. Meaning that they can't take away our guns during a state of emergency. Everything else sounds like bla,bla,bla.

    TJ

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    478

    Post imported post

    in a nutshell it means that if the SHTF they can't make new gun laws or take away our guns.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Let me see if I can parse the legalese:

    (1) As used in this section:
    (a)(i) "Confiscate" means for an individual in Utah to intentionally deprive another of a privately owned firearm.
    (ii) "Confiscate" does not include the taking of a firearm from an individual:
    (A) in self-defense;
    (B) possessing a firearm while the individual is committing a felony or misdemeanor; or
    (C) who may not, under state or federal law, possess the firearm.
    (b) "Firearm" has the same meaning as defined in Subsection 76-10-501(9)
    Just some definitions, to make clear what it means to "confiscate" a "firearm". Just what you'd think it means, except that it is legal to take the gun of someone who is attacking or threatening you, or who is committing a crime, or who can't legally have a gun anyway.

    (2) During a declared state of emergency or local emergency under this chapter:
    So all of this stuff only applies during emergencies

    (a) neither the governor nor an agency of a governmental entity or political subdivision of the state may impose restrictions, which were not in force prior to the declared state of emergency, on the lawful possession, transfer, sale, transport, storage, display, or use of a firearm or ammunition;
    The government can't impose new restrictions on guns during an emergency.

    (b) an individual, while acting or purporting to act on behalf of the state or a political subdivision of the state, may not confiscate a privately owned firearm of another individual.
    Nobody can take your gun, claiming it's because the government told him to.

    (3) A law or regulation passed during a declared state of emergency that does not relate specifically to the lawful possession or use of a firearm and that has attached criminal penalties may not be used to justify the confiscation of a firearm from an individual acting in defense of self, property, or others when on:
    (a) the individual's private property; or
    (b) the private property of another as an invitee.
    No law can be passed during an emergency that allows confiscation of guns from people defending their property. This seems to be trying to close off some sort of end-run around the law, where maybe a city might pass an ordinance making something unrelated to guns a crime and then allowing confiscation of guns from people who break this law.

    However, I notice that this only applies when you're on private property, yours or a friend's. So if the city passes such a law, and you're breaking it, and you step onto the street, then you might have your guns legally confiscated.

    (4) (a) An individual who has a firearm confiscated in violation of Subsection (2) may bring a civil action in a court having the appropriate jurisdiction:
    (i) for damages, in the maximum amount of $10,000, against a person who violates Subsection (2);
    (ii) for a civil penalty, in the amount of $5,000 per violation, against a person who violates Subsection (2); and
    (iii) for return of the confiscated firearm.
    (b) As used in this Subsection (4), "person" means an individual, the governmental entity on whose behalf the individual is acting or purporting to act, or both the individual and the governmental entity.
    If someone does take your guns during an emergency, you can sue. Looks like you can get $10,000 in damages from the person who took your gun, plus a $5,000 penalty, per gun taken. And if the person who took your guns was acting on behalf of a government, you might be able to collect from both. Oh, and they have to give you back your guns.

    (5) (a) A law enforcement officer shall not be subject to disciplinary action for refusing to confiscate a firearm under this section if:
    (i) ordered or directed to do so by a superior officer; and
    (ii) by obeying the order or direction, the law enforcement officer would be committing a violation of this section.
    (b) For purposes of this Subsection (5), disciplinary action might include:
    (i) dismissal, suspension, or demotion;
    (ii) loss of or decrease in benefits, pay, privileges or conditions of employment; and
    (iii) any type of written or electronic indication, permanent or temporary, on the officer's personnel record of the officer's refusal to obey the unlawful order.
    Cops who are ordered to confiscate your guns can refuse the order, and can't be fired, suspended, demoted or punished in any way, and can't even have the incident noted in their record. I think the law should have gone one step further, and required that the superior giving the order be punished and the officer refusing the order be commended.

    One more thing to remember: All of this stuff limiting new restrictions and laws, etc. during an emergency does not apply to the state legislature. They made this law, they can get rid of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Payson, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,146

    Post imported post

    there already is a "RIGHT" that prevents them from taking away our guns i hate the people who were elected into higher rankings in this country. wish lincoln was still around!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Payson, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,146

    Post imported post

    also.. what if before the state of emergency, they confiscated all our guns? then would they give them back? LOL!

    if a government person ever walked up to my door forcing me to give them my guns... a small war would start on my doorstep

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    In a nutshell, this bill simply prevents anyone--from the governor down to local police chief and individual officers--from claiming that a declared state of emergency grants them some special power to confiscate guns. There are already laws in place to address attempted confiscation at other times. Since there is no law allowing the government to confiscate guns, we might argue this bill is unnecessary.

    But in a day and age when government assumes all powers not specifically denied it, better safe than sorry. Plus, the bill provides specific remedies to gun owners as well as protections to individual officers who refuse to seize guns. It also makes clear that curfews and other rules cannot be used as a blanket excuse to seize guns.

    It is no silver bullet, and there are always ways that tyrants can abuse or ignore laws. But to any who are honest enough to care, this should remove all doubt on the subject.

    And yes, the legislature can always undo what a prior legislagture has done. This is true not just of this law, but of the whole of our gun laws including permitless Israeli carry, shall issue permits, and the list of off limit locations. Well have we been told that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

    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.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    b1ack5mith wrote:
    wish lincoln was still around!
    Lincoln? You mean the president that suspended habeus corpus and due process for suspected souther sympathizers? The president that imprisoned much of his political opposition, and even deported one? The president that shut down newspapers that opposed him? The president that confiscated guns on a massive scale in the border states, because he was afraid they might decide to secede (self-fulfilling prophecy there)?

    Lincoln was the right man to hold the union together, but he wasn't too big on rights or on following the constitution. I think he's a president best admired from afar; I wouldn't actually want to have him in office during my time.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    And yes, the legislature can always undo what a prior legislagture has done. This is true not just of this law, but of the whole of our gun laws including permitless Israeli carry, shall issue permits, and the list of off limit locations. Well have we been told that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
    Exactly.

    Makes me feel guilty I'm not going to be in Utah to help out on Saturday

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    utbagpiper wrote:
    And yes, the legislature can always undo what a prior legislagture has done. This is true not just of this law, but of the whole of our gun laws including permitless Israeli carry, shall issue permits, and the list of off limit locations. Well have we been told that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
    Exactly.

    Makes me feel guilty I'm not going to be in Utah to help out on Saturday
    SGTJensen and I will there OCing:celebrate



    TJ

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    SGTJensen and I will there OCing:celebrate
    I, for one, appreciate it. And utahbagpiper (no matter how confused he is on the subject of immigration ) deserves our undying gratitude for YEARS of work on our behalf.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Shy_Panda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Spokane / Pullman, Washington, USA
    Posts
    336

    Post imported post

    Utah is looking more and more friendly every day.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Shy_Panda wrote:
    Utah is looking more and more friendly every day.
    This is me, Utah's Attorney General Mark Shurtleff (with a Glock 20) and TJ.




    This is the three of us with Senator Michael Waddoups. He prevented HB473 from becoming law.



    This is Travis, Dell "Super Dell" Schanze, and TJ. Dell is the libertarian candidate for Governor of Utah.




    And here is Travis, Dell Schanze and I.




    YES IT DOES:celebrate:celebrate.

    TJ

    (I am the Guy in the cowboy hat)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Layton, Utah, USA
    Posts
    92

    Post imported post

    Cool pics.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,221

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    Shy_Panda wrote:
    Utah is looking more and more friendly every day.
    This is me, Utah's Attorney General Mark Shurtleff (with a Glock 20) and TJ.




    This is the three of us with Senator Michael Waddoups. He prevented HB473 from becoming law.



    This is Travis, Dell "Super Dell" Schanze, and TJ. Dell is the libertarian candidate for Governor of Utah.




    And here is Travis, Dell Schanze and I.




    YES IT DOES:celebrate:celebrate.

    TJ

    (I am the Guy in the cowboy hat)
    Im not in ANY of these pictures, but they just got printed out and put on my mantel!!!

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:

    (3) A law or regulation passed during a declared state of emergency that does not relate specifically to the lawful possession or use of a firearm and that has attached criminal penalties may not be used to justify the confiscation of a firearm from an individual acting in defense of self, property, or others when on:
    (a) the individual's private property; or
    (b) the private property of another as an invitee.
    No law can be passed during an emergency that allows confiscation of guns from people defending their property. This seems to be trying to close off some sort of end-run around the law, where maybe a city might pass an ordinance making something unrelated to guns a crime and then allowing confiscation of guns from people who break this law.

    However, I notice that this only applies when you're on private property, yours or a friend's. So if the city passes such a law, and you're breaking it, and you step onto the street, then you might have your guns legally confiscated.

    (
    One more thing to remember: All of this stuff limiting new restrictions and laws, etc. during an emergency does not apply to the state legislature. They made this law, they can get rid of it.
    The private property protection was added specifically to avoid end runs on gun bans such as curfews or other new laws or orders that might otherwise be legit during a state of emergency.

    If you violate a curfew, or any other law, and are subject to arrest, you might legitimately expect to lose your gun.

    This section makes clear that such orders or laws may not extend onto your private property.

    So while a curfew may be imposed, and if you were out and about you could be arrested, detained, or even disarmed, the curfew cannot force you inside your home. Your front porch or driveway is still your domain. I think the section would also cover any kind of forced evacuation order. If you choose to disregard and stay home (or group at a friend's home), they can't seize your guns as a consequence of violating that order.

    As for the legislature, yup. They give, they take away. And as good as our State constitutional protection of RKBA is, it is not good enough, nor most judges honorable enough to guarantee nearly the level of RKBA we enjoy with current statute. Current statute is under attack, in one way or another, EVERY legislative session.

    This next session, we will doubtless see attempts to limit or even prevent non-res permits and non-res instructors. While that may not affect you directly, in the short term, it will affect you in the long term, or at least move the beachhead so the next battle does affect you.

    EVERYONE who is serious about carrying guns for self defense needs to set asside as much time as possible during the session each year (Roughly End of January through the 1st week of march) to fight for our rights. A little time every other year to attend political caucases, conventions, and help elect good candidates and/or defeat bad incumbents is also needed.

    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.

Posting Permissions

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