Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Bill urges businesses to allow concealed carry permits on property

  1. #1
    Regular Member younggun20's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Ogden, Utah, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=9864958

    SALT LAKE CITY -- State lawmakers have passed a bill in the House aimed at encouraging private property owners to allow people with concealed carry permits to enter their property.
    Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, told the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee he's heard from business owners who want to allow concealed carry permit holders on their property, but they don't want to be responsible if that gun is fired.
    Sandstrom says House Bill 380 makes the gun owner the liable one.
    "If a private property owner allows somebody to come onto their property with a concealed weapon with them, [the property owner] cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for the actions of that permit holder," said Sandstrom.
    The bill would not require property owners to allow concealed carry permit holders to bring a gun onto their property.
    The representative told the committee having concealed carry permit holders in a business could help prevent a mass shooting. He then pointed out that the Trolley Square shooter was slowed by a person carrying a concealed weapon.
    Still, Gun Violence Prevention Center board member Steve Gunn says increasing the number of fire arms can increase the danger.
    "I think that a firearm can act as an accellerant in a situation where there's confrontation between people," Gunn says.
    He also sees the HB 380 as a way to encourage open-carry, and that people should be able to go after a business that creates an environment allowing anyone to walk around with a gun strapped to the hip.
    HB 380 passed the House and now goes to the Senate.
    Story compiled with contributions from Randall Jeppesen and Sheryl Worsley
    ================================================== ===========
    http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillint/hb0380.htm
    ================================================== ===========

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Too bad we have to legislate common sense! Pass the bill already.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Rottie wrote:
    Too bad we have to legislate common sense! Pass the bill already.
    It passed. Now we just need the governor to sign it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    Rottie wrote:
    Too bad we have to legislate common sense! Pass the bill already.
    It passed. Now we just need the governor to sign it.
    Whatever it takes! Hopefully this will help more business stay away from the no guns allowed policies. I hate free fire zones. I personally know a small business owner who has such a policy because she was bullied into it by her insurance carrier to limit liability. I'll have to see if she is willing to change her stance on her policy and pressure the insurance company back if the Governor signs this.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Davis County, UT , ,
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    Whatever it takes! Hopefully this will help more business stay away from the no guns allowed policies. I hate free fire zones. I personally know a small business owner who has such a policy because she was bullied into it by her insurance carrier to limit liability. I'll have to see if she is willing to change her stance on her policy and pressure the insurance company back if the Governor signs this.
    As we discussed today, hopefully this law will also let the LDS Church, and any other church for that matter, remove it's ban on weapons in houses of worship. Churches are perfect free fire zones for psychos all over the country.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Braveheart23C wrote:
    Whatever it takes! Hopefully this will help more business stay away from the no guns allowed policies. I hate free fire zones. I personally know a small business owner who has such a policy because she was bullied into it by her insurance carrier to limit liability. I'll have to see if she is willing to change her stance on her policy and pressure the insurance company back if the Governor signs this.
    As we discussed today, hopefully this law will also let the LDS Church, and any other church for that matter, remove it's ban on weapons in houses of worship. Churches are perfect free fire zones for psychos all over the country.
    Is it OK to cross your fingers but not hold your breath? I do however think that this may make a difference since the current stance is one of policy not doctrine and every policy has it's roots somewhere. The LDS church is not anti gun and has not forgotten it's persecuted past. In fact it recognizes the constitution as a divinely inspired document as a whole, including the second ammendment.

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

    Post imported post

    I actually view this as a bad bill. It should not be limited to CFP holders.

  8. #8
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    I actually view this as a bad bill. It should not be limited to CFP holders.
    If my intuition serves me correctly, this bill could actually be a good foundation for future legislation that would include open carry. If nothing changes for a couple of years (if) after this bill is signed into law, and all is well with businesses finding out that nothing really changed as far as danger etc..., then the path might be clear for OC legislation to move forward and finally force businesses open to the general public not to discriminate against OCers. It creates a denomination between those that conceal and those that don't, and it will have to be rectified at one time or another in the future on the basis of discrimination.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sandy, Utah, USA
    Posts
    215

    Post imported post

    younggun20 wrote:
    Gun Violence Prevention Center board member Steve Gunn says increasing the number of fire arms can increase the danger.
    Funny coincidence's!

    The Bill is named 380! & the Anti-Gun Guy's name is Steve "Gunn!" :what:WTH!

    Utah Certified Concealed Firearms Permit Instructor
    NRA Pistol Instructor & RSO

    Lover of Freedom

  10. #10
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    I actually view this as a bad bill. It should not be limited to CFP holders.
    I disagree that this is a bad bill. When it is read closely, it is clear that the gun need not be concealed, solely that the person have a permit to carry a concealed firearm in order for the property owner toremain exempt from liability in the case the firearm is discharged without consent or fault of the property owner. I personally believe that if you are going to regularly open carry, you should have a permit for concealed carry as well so that you do not have to restrict or alter your daily movements by avoiding school zones. Remember that federal law (Gun Free School Zone Act-18 USC ss 922(q) ) prohibits the carry of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school either public or private. My advice is either get a permit or a good map showing where school zones are. I think permits are less cumbersome.

    The only exceptions to this federal law is if you live within that 1,000 feet of the schoolor have a valid state issued CFP. Because it is against federal law to carry a gun within these school zones, it may (I am not an attorney) give law enforcement the authority to stop you and require that you prove you are not comitting a crime, by exemption, if you are spotted carrying a gun in a school zone.

    While I do agree with you that for the benefit of the property owner this bill should not just apply to those with CFP, it doesn't mean that as is this is a bad bill,it is just a slow start. It will take us time to educate property owners that change their stance to allow guns on their properties, that just because we carry openly does not mean we do not have a permit to carry concealed; and that if we do have a CFP and choose to carry openly in their stores, they are still exempt from liability.


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Rottie wrote:
    I personally believe that if you are going to regularly open carry, you should have a permit for concealed carry as well so that you do not have to restrict or alter your daily movements by avoiding school zones.
    What if you can't get a CFP?

  12. #12
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    If a person can't get a permit I suggest a good school zonemap because right nowwithout a CFP permit, the person would be subject to penalties prescribed by federal law through the guns free school zone act 18U.S.C. ss922(Q). My real hope is that Local LEO's will not harass those who carry openly in school zones by enforcing this crazy federal law. I would hope that none of my fellow OCDO friends who do not have permits end up in jail because they did not know they were in a school zone.

    I personally believe that the guns free school zone act is terrible. It should be repealed and the sooner the better. I also believe that unless you are a restricted person by utah law that you should be able to carry how and where you please including schools, churches, hospitals, and even court houses. Unfortunately this is not the case. I am interested to see what the Utah made firearms legislation will do to address this issue in the future.

    On that note, how do we go about getting Springfield armory and Glock to open up shop in utah?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Rottie wrote:
    If a person can't get a permit I suggest a good school zone¬*map because right now¬*without a CFP permit, the person would be subject to penalties prescribed by federal law through the guns free school zone act 18U.S.C. ss922(Q). My real hope is that Local LEO's will not harass those who carry openly in school zones by enforcing this crazy federal law.
    I think the state GFSZA is a bigger problem than the federal one. AFAICT no one has ever been prosecuted under the federal law, in the 14 years it's been on the books, so it apparently isn't an issue in practice. I think the reason it hasn't been used is because everyone knows it's unconstitutional.

    The state law, however, doesn't have the same constitutional problems. And I think local law enforcement is much more likely to care about that law.

    To top it all off, there's the fact that Utah gun-free school zones are mobile. Anywhere within 1000 feet of a school-sponsored activity is a school zone!

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    Bear in mind that the State GFSZ Law includes not only K-12, but institutions of higher ed--including vocational and trade schools (How many strip mall beauty salons are also teaching schools, how many mechanic's shops might be vocational schools, how many plumbing stores include vocational schools, etc?). It ALSO includes daycares and pre-schools, including those in private homes.

    That is 1000' (as the crow flies) from every K-12, day care, preschool, college, university, trade school, vocational school, real estate school, etc, in the State of Utah. PLUS, 1000' from any park, pavilion, or other area/structure being actively used for a school activity. See 76-10-505.5 and 76-3-203.2(1). What is a perfectly legal place to OC most days can become a GFSZ simply because a bus load of kills pulls up to go listen to the symphony.

    There are exceptions if you are in a private car, on your own property, and if you have a permit to carry.

    I think it very risky, legally, to OC without a permit, outside your own car, in most urban and sub-urban areas of the State of Utah.

    We need to correct this overly expansive definition of school zones. But with 4 days left in the 2010 session and no bills drafted, I can guarantee it will be at least another year before that happens.

    Anyone who is going to OC and can get a permit, really should do so. Anyone who cannot get a permit, needs to very carefully consider what risks he is willing to accept and how sympathetic of a defendant he is going to be some over-zealous cop/prosecutor catch him 990 feet away from a pre-school, or day care, or even some concert hall or aquarium hosting a school field trip. It may not be right, but most of society (including a lot of gun owners) are not going to be very sympathetic to the notion of a 19 year old kid, or someone with a 3 year old DUI or drug conviction, or someone with some crime of "moral turpitude" on his recent record, walking around with a gun near schools. Nor will such a case in the news be helping us to get our GFSZ law changed in any good direction.

    Food for thought.

    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.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    The only problem I see with the bill only passing liability to CFP holders is if some criminal comes in without a permit, the business "could" still be liable in case of a discharge.

    Did I miss something? Why would it apply only to CFP holders?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Jordan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    65

    Post imported post

    jaredbelch wrote:
    The only problem I see with the bill only passing liability to CFP holders is if some criminal comes in without a permit, the business "could" still be liable in case of a discharge.

    Did I miss something? Why would it apply only to CFP holders?
    I think the reason being is that the bill would be easier to pass and establish a trend of non-affect or good affect and then scale it back to anyone who lawfully carries a gun regardless of permit status.

    While I like this bill I think in a court of law the owner would still not be liable for the actions of another, except in specific situations. What this does is absolutely say the buisness can't be held liable thereby reducing fear about combatting a trash lawsuit.

Posting Permissions

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