Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Time to push on SB78 and 1SHB357

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    It is time to write to the House and Senate Leadership to get these two bills moving. Both have passed their originating chambers and are now sitting in the Rules Committees of the other chamber.

    We need to write to the leadership of BOTH the House and the Senate and ask them to move these bills forward.

    Note: Litvack voted against 1SHB357 in a 65-8-2 vote, and Jones and Romero voted against SB78 in a 25-4-0 vote. All other leadership voted for their respective bills.

    House Majority Leadership:

    Speaker of the House: David Clark (R)
    dclark@utah.gov

    Majority Leader: Kevin Garn (R)
    kgarn@utah.gov

    Majority Whip: Brad L. Dee (R)
    bdee@utah.gov

    Majority Assistant Whip: Rebecca Lockhart (R)
    blockhart@utah.gov

    Minority Leader: David Litvack (D)
    dlitvack@utah.gov

    Minority Whip: James Gowans (D)
    jgowans@utah.gov

    Minority Assistant Whip: Carol Spackman Moss (D)
    csmoss@utah.gov

    Senate Majority Leadership:

    President: Michael G. Waddoups (R)
    waddoups@utahsenate.org

    Majority Leader: Sheldon Killpack (R)
    skillpack@utahsenate.org

    Majority Whip: Scott K. Jenkins (R)
    sjenkins@utahsenate.org

    Assistant Majority Whip: Gregory S. Bell (R)
    gbell@utahsenate.org

    Minority Leader: Patricia W. Jones (D)
    pjones@utahsenate.org

    Minority Whip: Ross I. Romero (D)
    rromero@utahsenate.org

    Assistant Minority Whip: Karen Mayne (D)
    kmayne@utahsenate.org



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    Here is a template you can use to send an email. (as I did).

    SUBJECT: House Bill 357, sponsored by State Representative Steve Sandstrom (R-58)

    We have only until midnight Thursday to pass House Bill 357, sponsored by State Representative Steve Sandstrom (R-58)

    Fifteen states, including Arizona, Colorado, Montana, and Nevada allow the carrying of concealed, loaded firearms for self-protection in vehicles without a concealed weapon permit. An additional nine states, including Idaho and Wyoming, allow loaded firearms to be carried openly for self-protection in vehicles.

    As a native born citizen of Utah and a gunowner, I urge to please move these bills forward.

    Sincerely,


    SENT TO:
    dclark@utah.gov, kgarn@utah.gov, bdee@utah.gov, blockhart@utah.gov, dlitvack@utah.gov, jgowans@utah.gov, csmoss@utah.gov, waddoups@utahsenate.org, skillpack@utahsenate.org, sjenkins@utahsenate.org, gbell@utahsenate.org, pjones@utahsenate.org, rromero@utahsenate.org, kmayne@utahsenate.org

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    We are making progress, SB78 has been moved to the House 3rd Reading Calendar which means it is only one vote away from being sent to the Governor unless the House amends it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    1HB357 has made it to the Senate 2nd Reading Calendar.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    1HB357 has been crcled on the Senate 2nd reading calendar. This means we need to push our State Senators HARD!!! If we don't get it uncircled, it will DIE!

    Remember, the session ends Thursday at midnight. The longer they wait to take action the less likely it will pass.

    If you don't know who your State Senator is, you can find out here:

    http://le.utah.gov/

    Run your mouse over "Senate" on the left to get the menu. If you know what district you are in you can go straight to the roster, otherwise you can use the map.


  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    1S SB78 passed the house, but was amended at least twice there. I haven't been able to see the amendments yet. At any rate, it has to go back to the Senate for passage.

    The House vote was 61-11-3

    Voting against were :

    Biskupski, Hemingway, Litvack, Riesen, Chavez-Houck, Johnson, McIff, Seelig, Ferry, King, and Moss

    Not Voting were:

    Bigelow, Greenwood, and Ray

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    1S HB 357 is currently being debated in the Senate. It has been amended so it will have to go back to the House.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    1S HB 357 passed the Senate, amended, with 25-3-1 vote. Now it goes back to the House for concurrence.

    Voting against:

    Jones, McCoy, and Robles

    Not voting:

    Hillyard

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    I hate to rain on the parade, but I actually oppose SB78. Private property owners deserve the right to restrict firearms in their parking lots if they choose to do so. That is simply my little 'ole opinion.

    BTW... Guns are welcome in my parking lot...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    The House amendment to 1S SB78 was put forward by Representative Oda. It makes a minor change that slightly narrows one loophole.

    The Senate amendments to 1S HB 357 added language that this does not apply to persons under 18 years of age, and Does not allow loaded Shotguns, Rifles, or Muzzle loaders. These amendments were put forward by Senator Madsen. The long gun amendment came from Wildlife Management.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    combatcarry wrote:
    I hate to rain on the parade, but I actually oppose SB78. Private property owners deserve the right to restrict firearms in their parking lots if they choose to do so. That is simply my little 'ole opinion.
    While you will find very few people who are more outspoken in favor of property rights than I am, I also believe that there is an order of precedence to our basic rights. In virtually every case where basic human rights are listed, the right to Life is first and foremost. The right to Keep and Bear Arms is in its very basic form is the right to Life in that it is the right to protect life, and therefor trumps most other rights.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    combatcarry wrote:
    I hate to rain on the parade, but I actually oppose SB78. Private property owners deserve the right to restrict firearms in their parking lots if they choose to do so. That is simply my little 'ole opinion.

    BTW... Guns are welcome in my parking lot...
    I can respect your opinion, but I think it is a false dilemma.

    This is about property rights vs the right to life, to an effective self defense, to privacy, and the property rights of the car owner. This bill strikes a very moderate balance in not allowing (most) employers to reach inside your private car just because you park in their (almost always unsecured) parking lot.

    In the grand scheme, it is infinitely less of a burden on the owner of the business than are many other laws we already have in place to protect life and limb. Fire doors, fire systems, adhering to seismic codes, and maximum capacity limits ALL place FAR more burden on the property owner than does this kind of parking lot law.

    Now maybe there are some hardcore l/Libertarian types who oppose those basic safety laws as well. But not many. Most of us recognize the propriety of such laws at least in practice, even if not in pure political theory.

    This is a good bill that all gun owners and others interested not only in public safety but also preserving ANY rights of employees to have private lives outside of work, ought to support.

    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.

  13. #13
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Property rights? How is having a 2 pound firearm in a parking lot any different than having a 4000 pound SUV in a parking lot? I mean, they are both just equipment, right? What about all of the hazardous material that vehicles already contain? I don't hear anyone crying about hazardous materials in their parking lots.
    "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

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    It was very interesting to listen to the floor debate on HB357 in the Senate yesterday. The biggest selling point for most of those who questioned it was that it promotes safety by allowing a person with a firearm to keep it out of the sight and reach of children.

  15. #15
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Well, Senator Madsen said that SB 78 needed some more "fine tuning" before the Senate could concur. So it will go back to the house and hopefully something good can still become of this bill.

    HB 357 received 63 Yea votes and only 8 nays in the house concurrence, and will go to the Senate President for his signature. :celebrate
    "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

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    HB 357 Sub. passed the House concurrence on a 63-8-4 vote, a veto proof majority.:celebrate
    I missed what happened to SB78 as I couldn't get the audio feed to work.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    Well, Senator Madsen said that SB 78 needed some more "fine tuning" before the Senate could concur. So it will go back to the house and hopefully something good can still become of this bill.
    This bill has been fine tuned almost to death! How many more loopholes are they going to add?

    Yes, I am very frustrated with how this bill has been handled. It has been several years in the making, how long does it take to "get it right"?

    It seems very odd to me that with the overwhelming majority it has got on all previous votes and how minor the last amendments were, that it gets pulled at this point. I strongly suspect that there is something going on they are are hiding.

    If, as it appears, it was up for a concurrence vote and its sponsor pulled the bill, I can't help but think that he is playing some kind of a political trade with it.

  18. #18
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    I may have not heard correctly, but Senator Madsen said that there was an issue with the house amended version that did not jive with "Homeland Security". So it was sent back to the house for "fine tuning".
    "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

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    The house amendment did very little. According to Representative Oda, it made a very slight narrowing of the ability to claim the Homeland Security exemption (red is added, blue is removed):


    1.Page 6, Lines 154 through 156
    Senate 3rd Reading Amendments
    3-3-2009 :


    154 (5) A person who is subject to federal law that specifically forbids the presence of a
    155 firearm from property designated for motor vehicle parking
    , or a person who is subject to Section 550 of the United States Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-295 or regulations enacted in accordance with that section, is exempt from Section 34-45-103

    156 if:

    2.Page 6, Lines 161 through 161c
    Senate 3rd Reading Amendments
    3-3-2009 :


    161 a storage location poses and undue burden.
    161a
    {
    S. (6) A person who is subject to Section 550 of the United States Department of Homeland Security
    161b Appropriations Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-295, or regulations enacted in accordance with that
    161c section, is not subject to this chapter. .S
    }


    [line]

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    SB78 is most likely DEAD!

    3/11/2009 House/ refused to recede from amendments



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    A conference committee came up with a new version and the Hose passed it:

    http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/sbillint/sb0078s02.htm

    It looks like it is actually better than the previous as it makes it more difficult to claim an exemption.

    Now it has to pass the Senate.


  22. #22
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    HOORAY! :celebrate SB 78 just passed the Senate! The vote was 22-3-4!

    Now back to the house for final actions!

    Edited to add one more YEA vote, apparently I missed one.
    "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

  23. #23
    Regular Member thx997303's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lehi, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,716

    Post imported post

    So, nothing on 1SHB357 yet?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    thx997303 wrote:
    So, nothing on 1SHB357 yet?
    It passed yesterday and has been sent to the governor.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    HOORAY! :celebrate SB 78 just passed the Senate! The vote was 21-3-4!

    Now back to the house for final actions!
    I'm glad you got the vote. I lost my connection right in the middle of the vote.

    The house adopted the conference report last night, so it should be pretty much done.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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