Rep Wimmer to carry Constitutional Carry Bill 2011 legislature

yo101jimmy said:

will it be in this session any Idea?

Click to expand...

That is what he has planned.

Hb0129

The Constitutional Carry Bill ( as we know it ) received the number HB0129 this past Saturday (2/5/11). It currently contains no text, but at least it's moving.

Mike

Max said:

Here is a way to get around the federal gun free school zones.

Montana Code Annotated

45-8-360. Establishment of individual licensure. In consideration that the
right to keep and bear arms is protected and reserved to the people in
Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution, a person who has not
been convicted of a violent, felony crime and who is lawfully able to own or
to possess a firearm under the Montana constitution is considered to be
individually licensed and verified by the state of Montana within the
meaning of the provisions regarding individual licensure and verification in
the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Click to expand...

A bill (HB2392) has been introduced in to the Arizona Legislature that models this. Fed GFSZs are of no consequence here, as they are not enforced by AZ agencies. This is meant to keep the feds in their place.


http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/hb2392p.htm

AN ACT
amending title 13, chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, by adding section 13-3121; relating to firearms.


Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Title 13, chapter 31, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 13-3121, to read:

START_STATUTE13-3121. Firearm possession; outside the grounds of a school

For the purposes of 18 United States Code section 922, a person who lawfully owns or possesses a firearm pursuant to the constitution and laws of this state is considered by this state to be individually licensed and verified to possess a firearm immediately outside the grounds of a school.

END_STATUTE

HB 0129 Text

Hello all;
Here's the latest revision as posted on the UT legislature site.


H.B. 129

1

FIREARMS MODIFICATIONS
2
2011 GENERAL SESSION

3
STATE OF UTAH

4
Chief Sponsor: Carl Wimmer
5
Senate Sponsor: ____________

6
7 LONG TITLE
8 General Description:
9 This bill amends provisions of Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 5, Weapons, related to conduct
10 involving firearms.
11 Highlighted Provisions:
12 This bill:
13 . provides an exemption for a person, who is 21 years of age or older and who may
14 lawfully possess a dangerous weapon, from certain criminal provisions in Title 76,
15 Chapter 10, Part 5, Weapons, related to the carrying of a dangerous weapon.
16 Money Appropriated in this Bill:
17 None
18 Other Special Clauses:
19 None
20 Utah Code Sections Affected:
21 AMENDS:
22 76-10-505.5, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2003, Chapter 203
23 76-10-523, as last amended by Laws of Utah 2009, Chapter 362
24
25 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
26 Section 1. Section 76-10-505.5 is amended to read:
27 76-10-505.5. Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-off shotgun on
28 or about school premises -- Penalties.
29 (1) A person may not possess [any] a dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-off
30 shotgun, as those terms are defined in Section 76-10-501 , at a place that the person knows, or
31 has reasonable cause to believe, is on or about school premises as defined in Subsection
32 76-3-203.2 (1).
33 (2) (a) Possession of a dangerous weapon on or about school premises is a class B
34 misdemeanor.
35 (b) Possession of a firearm or sawed-off shotgun on or about school premises is a class
36 A misdemeanor.
37 (3) This section does not apply if:
38 (a) the person is authorized to possess a firearm as provided under Section 53-5-704 ,
39 53-5-705 , 76-10-511 , or Subsection 76-10-523 (1) or (2), or as otherwise authorized by law;
40 (b) the possession is approved by the responsible school administrator;
41 (c) the item is present or to be used in connection with a lawful, approved activity and
42 is in the possession or under the control of the person responsible for its possession or use; or
43 (d) the possession is:
44 (i) at the person's place of residence or on the person's property;
45 (ii) in any vehicle lawfully under the person's control, other than a vehicle owned by
46 the school or used by the school to transport students; or
47 (iii) at the person's place of business which is not located in the areas described in
48 Subsection 76-3-203.2 (1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iv).
49 (4) This section does not prohibit prosecution of a more serious weapons offense that
50 may occur on or about school premises.
51 Section 2. Section 76-10-523 is amended to read:
52 76-10-523. Persons exempt from weapons laws.
53 (1) This part and Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7, Concealed [Weapon] Firearm Act, do not
54 apply to any of the following:
55 (a) a United States marshal;
56 (b) a federal official required to carry a firearm;
57 (c) a peace officer of this or any other jurisdiction;
58 (d) a law enforcement official as defined and qualified under Section 53-5-711 ;
59 (e) a judge as defined and qualified under Section 53-5-711 ;
60 (f) a common carrier while engaged in the regular and ordinary transport of firearms as
61 merchandise; or
62 (g) a nonresident traveling in or through the state, provided that any firearm is:
63 (i) unloaded; and
64 (ii) securely encased as defined in Section 76-10-501 .
65 (2) The provisions of Subsections 76-10-504 (1) and (2), and Section 76-10-505 do not
66 apply to any person to whom a permit to carry a concealed firearm has been issued:
67 (a) pursuant to Section 53-5-704 ; or
68 (b) by another state or county.
69 (3) The provisions of Subsections 76-10-504 (1) and (2) and Section 76-10-505 do not
70 apply to a person 21 years of age or older who may lawfully possess a dangerous weapon.




Legislative Review Note
as of 2-14-11 3:26 PM

Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel

Lines 69 and 70 seem to show what would be "Constitutional Carry." Obviously, this still maintains the not-on-school premises provision, as enumerated on lines 25-50.

Take a look;
Mike

I would like to see on line 70 "21 years of age" taken out... but that's just wishfull thinkining. It will be interesting to see how that lawsuit in Texas plays out.

cdrhoad said:

I would like to see on line 70 "21 years of age" taken out... but that's just wishfull thinkining. It will be interesting to see how that lawsuit in Texas plays out.

Click to expand...

I am with cdrhoad on this one... no need even to put this. Under 18 can't legally possess as I understand it. 18 and over is a legal adult with voting rights.... they should have the right to carry AND CONCEAL IF DESIRED!

JoeSparky said:

I am with cdrhoad on this one... no need even to put this. Under 18 can't legally possess as I understand it. 18 and over is a legal adult with voting rights.... they should have the right to carry AND CONCEAL IF DESIRED!

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not.

An 18-20 year old cannot legally buy or consume alcohol.

An 18 year old cannot legally buy tobacco in Utah.

He cannot serve as a US Congressman, Senator, VP, nor president.

Somewhere between 14-16 we can start charging minors as adults if they commit crimes. But they can't even maintain a driving license without parental/guardian permission until 18.

Like it or not, this nation has and has always had a system of granting various rights and responsibilities at different ages. Call it "graduated ages of majority" if you must.

Now, that is the short history and philosophy lesson.

Here are the pragmatics: politics.

Is there ANYTHING bad in this bill? No there is not.

There is merely not quite as much good as you might have hoped.

Getting permit-free constitutional carry is a big deal. It has been a long road just to get to the point where introducing such a bill is something that serious legislator is willing to introduce it and push it.

Would you rather win a bill that allows constitutional carry for those 21 and over? Or not win a bill that tries to give constitutional carry to those 18 and over?

ANY bill that gives us even a little bit of good while imposing zero bad should be supported. And this is not just a little bit of good. It is a whole lot of good. Maybe not 100%. But well over 90%. With zero bad.

It needs to be fully and actively supported without reservation.

Charles

The Law Is Evolving

Charles is correct. We need to support the Bill in the form in which it has the greatest chance of passing. Each State's RTKBA laws has been evolving, sometimes slowly, sometimes more rapidly. Utah gun law has evolved over the years and it is probably too much to ask for immediate perfection. The new "right to carry" standard is now evolving into "Constitutional Carry" and more and more States are realizing that and writing new Laws.

We are lucky to live in Utah. Nearly all the Northeastern population has little or nothing in the way of a right to protect themselves (The "may issue" areas of NY City, NY, NJ, MD, etc. are actually "may issue if your political contribution was large enough.") And our fellow Citizens in the Midwestern States of Wisconsin and Illinois live under repressive "right denied laws", despite the recent pronouncements by SCOTUS. (Iowa has just seen the light and gone from may issue if you show a need to "shall issue". They went from recognizing no out of state permits to recognizing all out of state permits.)

To be clear. I like the UT permit system. I like having to just show my permit whenever I purchase a firearm and not be charged a background check tax. I like the freedom to travel to other States that it gives me and I will keep it current even if UT adopts Constitutional Carry. But, I also believe that the 2nd Amendment is clear enough. I believe in Constitutional Carry and I think we should increase the gun law penalties for the Bad Guys who are caught with firearms.

Disclaimer: Introducing "Constitutional Carry" into Utah may have unintended consequences for the economy. If enough Law Abiding Citizens go about their daily business armed (open or concealed), Bad Guys will realize that being a Bad Guy is hazardous to their health and move to Chicago or New York where Citizens cannot be armed as they go about their daily business. Then Utah may have to reduce its Police Forces and cause some jobs to be lost.

I'm still for the bill, just vocalizing some wishfull thinking. I would like to see my younger sibling carrying as soon as he is 18. So for his case we are going the route of getting a Maine permit. He has much more experience and knowledge of hand gun safety than most 21 year olds that I know who own and carry a gun.

cdrhoad said:

I'm still for the bill, just vocalizing some wishfull thinking. I would like to see my younger sibling carrying as soon as he is 18. So for his case we are going the route of getting a Maine permit. He has much more experience and knowledge of hand gun safety than most 21 year olds that I know who own and carry a gun.

Click to expand...

As a precocious young person I was often dismayed at what seemed arbitrary age limits for things like driving, buying/carrying a gun, voting, etc. Now solidly in middle age, I recognize some of my youthful errors. I also recognize that public policy and laws have to be fitted for the typical case, not for the exceptions. That may be a bit unfairly restrictive to those who are exceptionally bright or advanced. It may be a bit unfairly permissive to those who are slow.

When I turned 21 I was unable to get a permit in Utah under our old "May issue" laws. I spent time in Arizona where I couldn't get a permit under their "shall issue" laws because I was not a resident and they did not issue non-res permits then.

Some good men who probably could get permits under Utah's may issue law worked hard to get us shall issue and so I was able to easily get a permit when I returned to Utah after college. Utah residents with permits have worked hard to make sure non-residents could get permits and that we recognized permits from across the nation.

Most of the legislators and many of the activists who have worked hard to advance the legality of OC in Utah personally don't OC very often.

The majority of those pushing for Constitutional Carry already have a permit and will personally gain nothing from eliminating the need for the permit.

Sadly, too many who do have permits or who have access to unlimited professional training find it convenient to attack Constitutional Carry, or to support excessive training requirements to get a permit. Too many police officers lost all interest in supporting nationwide recognition once they got their special police-only version passed in federal law.

A little bit of personal benefit can be a good motivator to get involved in politics. But it can also be limiting; and can lead to disappointment when time frames are not sufficient to provide personal benefit.

We have what we have today in Utah on RKBA largely because a lot of people have spent the better part of 20 years working on a lot of stuff that is, often, of little or no direct personal benefit. And we make progress, most often, most reliably, with modest, incremental steps at a time rather than asking for everyone all in one shot.

Don't lose faith.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Some good men who probably could get permits under Utah's may issue law worked hard to get us shall issue and so I was able to easily get a permit when I returned to Utah after college. Utah residents with permits have worked hard to make sure non-residents could get permits and that we recognized permits from across the nation.

Click to expand...

Charles, while I wholeheartedly agree, I just want to point out that while many of us men worked long and hard I have to give credit to two women who were the die hard leaders, Dr. Sarah Thompson and Janalee Tobias. These two ladies spent countless hours on capitol hill and at political events across the state building support and lobbying to restore our rights here in Utah.

I have lost track of Dr. Thompson, but Janalee is still active in the RKBA cause as the president of Women Against Gun Control.

rpyne said:

Charles, while I wholeheartedly agree, I just want to point out that while many of us men worked long and hard I have to give credit to two women who were the die hard leaders, Dr. Sarah Thompson and Janalee Tobias. These two ladies spent countless hours on capitol hill and at political events across the state building support and lobbying to restore our rights here in Utah.

I have lost track of Dr. Thompson, but Janalee is still active in the RKBA cause as the president of Women Against Gun Control.

Click to expand...

I agree and with rare (and I hope obvious) exception, when I write "men" relative to such matters it is gender neutral and applies every bit as much to Sarah and Janalee as it does to Clark, Scott, Bill, Martin, and others.

In terms of time frame, it was largely a boys club that got us shall issue in Utah. Many of the strides made in the late 90s and early 00s were due to the work of Sarah and Janalee along with many of the boys.

Charles

Commitee hearing report--Emails and phone calls needed

I attended the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee hearing this morning.

Wimmer's H.B. 129 Firearms Modifications (aka Constitutional Carry) was first up.

Rep. Wimmer really does a great job at presenting this bill, both in committee and to the press afterward. He has the Reagan ability to smile and be very pleasant while simultaneously being very forceful. It is truly impressive. Committee co-chair, Rep. Oda does a very good job of chairing the committee fairly while making sure the antis don’t get any advantage.

The anti's hate this bill of course. But, if you’ve got time, bring up the audio of the committee hearing on line this evening or tomorrow when it is posted and listen as Litvack and Arent (who I think have voted against almost every pro-RKBA bill to come up while they have been there) speak glowingly of our carry permit and the process to get one. We really should transcribe it and use that against them in the future if they ever attack the permit.

To be clear, this bill does notchange WHERE a gun can be legally carried without a permit or WHO may legally carry a gun without a permit. Felons, wife beaters, drug addicts and other prohibited persons still cannot legally even own, much less carry a gun. Nobody without a permit can carry into a school zone.

Several of those expected to support the bill were not present when it came time to vote and the best Wimmer could do was get a 5-0-4 vote to hold the bill for a vote at the next committee meeting. Rep. Litvack attempted to "table" the bill (effectively killing it for the session) instead but lost that by 5-4-0 after Wimmer made a great defense of why the bill should come back.

In addition to some supporters who were missing, we have three representatives who are on the fence and need to have some polite and brief contact from constituents, delegates, and others. Please email or call the following Reps and ask them to support HB 129 without any amendments:

Rep David Butterfield from Logan; Email: dbutterfield@utah.gov Cell Phone: 435-363-5239
Rep. Steve Eliason from Sandy: Email: seliason@utah.gov Cell Phone: 801-300-9844
Rep. Lee Perry from Perry (south of Brigham City); Email: leeperry@utah.gov Home Phone: 435-734-2864 Cell Phone: 435-720-7838

Please always be polite and brief. Don't argue, threaten (even with a vote), or try to convince. Just ask them to support without amendment. If you live in the district and are a constituent or delegate, you should mention that and just say something like, "As a voter/delegate this is a very important bill to me and I'm asking you to support it without any amendments."

Charles

Little email i sent the representatives today.

Dear Representatives:

This is concerning HB0129. As a father of 4 children and and a Marine veteran from desert shield and desert storm and somalia. I ask you to support this bill. I come from 6 generations of a militray family. Besides coming from a military family, the main reason I joined is what I learned from history. We all learned it in school and through our parents. The freedoms we are entitled to by our constitution and the blood that millions of Americans that have died protecting those rights. We learn as children from jump street, how to read,write and how to talk to people, respect others and there property and the list goes on. Who taught most of this, our parents did. Even at 40 I am still learning. Me as a child, I grew up around guns as my children have. I have taught them everything I know about guns and the laws to the best of my knowledge and the responsibility that goes with them. But does that mean I know everything, No. Here are some basis for you to support the bill. At certain teen ages you can try a teenager as an adult for a crime. At 16 you put a person behind the wheel of a 10000+ pound vehicle to drive and at any time that can hurt someone. At 18, you consider people adults, they can vote, have no curfew, join the military and many other opportunitys. At 21 people can drink, gamble etc. Just remember the teaching always begins at home. Safety concerns I heard at the meeting was, officers feel allowing the law would put them more in harms way, I disagree. I have seen it to many times in real life as well in newspaper adds, everytime they pull someone over or they confront someone anywhere, they can be in danger at any time. The second thing I heard was about, Safety. Being of law abiding citizen, don’t you think it would be my responsibility as an adult to learn all I can about guns and the laws that go with them. Not all people are stupid, Don’t judge us cause some representatives think we need our hand held when it comes to guns. You trust us enough to allow them in our homes and our cars. There are some of the reasons why you should support this bill. The morale of the story. You trust us enough to vote, drive, pay bills, gamble, drink, work, pay taxes and many other things that can be mentioned. Trust us know to carry a weapon without having a piece of paper and its also our right as an american, given to us by our constitution and what I fought for when i served in the military. Don’t forget the millions of other people that served in the military and have sacrificed there lives in protecting our constitution. I thank you for your time in this matter.

cdrhoad said:

I would like to see on line 70 "21 years of age" taken out... but that's just wishfull thinkining. It will be interesting to see how that lawsuit in Texas plays out.

Click to expand...

How about instead of 21 make it 18 or possibly 16 like Vermont allows and has NO PROBLEMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can agree with you at the age of 18. Even though i was introduced to guns at a young age thanks to my uncle. You turn 18 and join the military. Your introduced to a gun and learn to use it, care for it and even shoot it. Even in some states and countires you are able to drink on the military base and even gamble at 18. Your old enough to die for your country, shoot someone in a war at 18, have the the death penalty given to you at 18. The list goes on.

Pegasus1976 said:

I can agree with you at the age of 18. Even though i was introduced to guns at a young age thanks to my uncle. You turn 18 and join the military. Your introduced to a gun and learn to use it, care for it and even shoot it. Even in some states and countires you are able to drink on the military base and even gamble at 18. Your old enough to die for your country, shoot someone in a war at 18, have the the death penalty given to you at 18. The list goes on.

Click to expand...

Guys, I understand the sentiment. But the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Getting this bill passed, as is, will be a HUGE achievement.

We've been doing this for more than 15 years (shall issue carry passed in 1995, our current State Constitutional language was adopted sometime before that I believe).

We'll be at it for another 15 years to get State law where it should be; And then forever after that to keep it good. Eternal vigilance and all that.

Please, send the emails and make the calls.

Please support HB 129 WITHOUT amendment.

The following is a partial list (shamelessly taken from IA_farmboy) of other States considering constitutional carry bills this year.

WY
SC
VA
MT
IA
UT
NH
CO
OR
TN

Wyoming's bill has passed the Senate and passed its first two (of three?) votes in the House. It looks likely to become law this year.

Charles

I listened to the audio of the complete committee meeting last pm. As to the Representative (I think from Cache Valley) who was looking for something in this bill to "hang his hat on"--- he seemed to be ok with limiting lawful carriers to Utah Unloaded carry only.... I immediately thought about the FBI "Tueller drill"... And if a trained person OPEN carrying has about a 50% chance of drawing, acquiring the target, and firing before getting stuck with a knife. If a law abiding citizen who was open carrying unloaded (as is now the requirement without a permit) would even have a 25% chance if it only took another 1/2 second to load as suggested by Representative Wimmer. So, I am to understand that as a law abiding citizen facing an individual who is intent upon inflicting serious and potentially lethal bodily injuring upon me I must be FURTHER HANDICAPPED (as those without permits are now) by giving the bad guy better odds of completing his goal----- Yeah, just how does this support the Utah and US Constitutional "KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be INFRINGED" amendments!?

JoeSparky said:

I listened to the audio of the complete committee meeting last pm. As to the Representative (I think from Cache Valley) who was looking for something in this bill to "hang his hat on"--- he seemed to be ok with limiting lawful carriers to Utah Unloaded carry only.... I immediately thought about the FBI "Tueller drill"... And if a trained person OPEN carrying has about a 50% chance of drawing, acquiring the target, and firing before getting stuck with a knife. If a law abiding citizen who was open carrying unloaded (as is now the requirement without a permit) would even have a 25% chance if it only took another 1/2 second to load as suggested by Representative Wimmer. So, I am to understand that as a law abiding citizen facing an individual who is intent upon inflicting serious and potentially lethal bodily injuring upon me I must be FURTHER HANDICAPPED (as those without permits are now) by giving the bad guy better odds of completing his goal----- Yeah, just how does this support the Utah and US Constitutional "KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be INFRINGED" amendments!?

Click to expand...

As usual Joe, well said. +1

After attending the meeting tonight. Its has passed 7-6. But with an amendment. Its says we must notify a leo if we carry concealed. But this only apllies to this bill and not the concealed permit people.