Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: HB 75 Sub 1 fixes Utahh GFSZ law

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    HB 75 Sub 1 fixes Utahh GFSZ law

    HB 75, 1st Substitute (as amended) http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/hbillamd/hb0075s01.htm has passed out of committee and is likely to get a full floor vote in the House this week.

    This bill dramatically improves Utah's law regarding gun free school zones by reducing those areas legally considered "school zones" to the areas that most of us think of them.

    Look for more detailed alerts on this from GOUtah! and the other pro-RKBA organizations in the next day or two. But please be ready with phone calls, faxes, or even emails to your State Reps asking them to support HB 75.

    Thank you.

    Charles
    GOUtah!

  2. #2
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    So this proposal eliminates UTAH's 1000 foot school zone restriction and Daycare and preschools but still include "public or private institutes of higher education" by my read. It also ELIMINATES those roving schools zones created anytime the school buses transported students to the State Capitol or to TIMP cave.

    BUT it will NOW include ALL COLLEGES and UNIVERSITIES in UTAH, both public AND PRIVATE. Will this also STILL include trade schools, technical schools, truck driving or cosmetology or massage therapy schools? Or just State colleges and universities, BYU, University of Phoenix, Stevens Heneger, and any other Business school owned by the LDS church?
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 02-07-2011 at 05:18 AM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member colormered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cache county, Utah, USA
    Posts
    116

    Thumbs up Support for HB 75

    Email just went out. Couldn't wait to speak up on this one.

  4. #4
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Why add colleges after all this time of carry on college campuses without a single firearm related incidence?

  5. #5
    Regular Member colormered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cache county, Utah, USA
    Posts
    116

    Details of statute change

    First, this does nothing to add any "prohibited zones". Everywhere that would be covered by this change was covered before. What this does is to REMOVE daycares, "preschools" and the 1000' buffer around all previous school grounds. It also removes locations where school groups may be on "field trips" that were covered before, but would not normally be considered school grounds. Technically, if the senior class arranged to have their senior party on the beach of the Great Salt Lake, that beach and a 1000' radius around it would be off limits without a permit. This bill removes that. The beach (and the 1000' radius around it) would no longer be "off limits".

    As much as we would like to, we likely can't undo 20,000 unconstitutional gun restrictions all at once.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Layton
    Posts
    2

    I testified at the committee meeting on Friday

    I took my two oldest kids with me, and it was pretty fun! They asked for public comment, and I raised my hand and went up. It stirred up quite a bit of discussion with the committee.

    As many have said on here before, some people get it, and plenty just don't. That Steven Gunn joker is one of them that doesn't get it. Too many people are driven by fear instead of by their love of liberty.

    Here's a page with the audio from the meeting if anyone is interested:
    http://le.utah.gov/ASP/interim/Minutes.asp?Meeting=8484

    If you ever have time to get involved with these bills that are going through, get down to the capitol and get to a committee meeting. I'm planning to be there whenever this one is being considered or Wimmer's Constitutional Carry bill.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Unfortunately, this is only a partial cure for the school problem. Until we get the disrupting statutes changed to specify that possession of a firearm without other threatening behavior is legal, OCers can still be charged under those.

    What ever became of the bill from last year that would have modified the disorderly conduct statute to protect OCers? It got started too late to make it last year, is anyone going to bring it up this year?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Murray, ,
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by rpyne View Post
    Unfortunately, this is only a partial cure for the school problem. Until we get the disrupting statutes changed to specify that possession of a firearm without other threatening behavior is legal, OCers can still be charged under those.

    What ever became of the bill from last year that would have modified the disorderly conduct statute to protect OCers? It got started too late to make it last year, is anyone going to bring it up this year?
    Baby steps.

    Unfortunately one cannot slap the anti's with the logic stick and have everything covered in one stroke.

    I'm 36 years old and I still cannot wrap my head around some of the 'logic' used by our politicians. Facts are right in front of them yet they either refuse to look or misinterpret the information. Those same type of people are the ones who thought it right to have black folks drink from certain fountains, that women didn't have whatever they deemed necessary to vote and that gays are made, not born that way.

    Just takes time. In a decade we'll collectively look back and wonder why it took so long for gays to legally be married. Hopefully before that time we'll look back and wonder why it took so long for lawmakers to pull their collective heads from their rears and realize that RKBA is a fundamental right and the laws that are on our books now are just silly when you boil them down.

    Until that day, we'll just have to crawl until we can run free. [insert MLK type speech here]
    Last edited by GenkiSudo; 02-12-2011 at 10:04 AM.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by GenkiSudo View Post
    Baby steps.

    Unfortunately one cannot slap the anti's with the logic stick and have everything covered in one stroke.
    Exactly. Look back to where Utah gun laws were 15 years ago. We don't have very many "big" wins since that time. But with a lot of seemingly small wins all piled on top of each other we are in a lot better shape than we were then:

    No waiting period to buy, no limits on number of purchases, statutory requirement for BCI not to retain any Brady record data once a person is ok'd to buy.
    Shall issue permits, valid Statewide, low cost, modest training requirements.
    State preemption on virtually every gun law other than discharge.
    Retained the ability to legally carry into bars and other establishments that serve alcohol. We can even imbibe while carrying so long as we are not intoxicated.
    Retained ability to legally carry into schools.
    Legal car carry in school zones even without a permit.
    Can carry into virtually any city or State government building other than court rooms.
    Government employees including teachers protected in their right to carry on the job.
    Can legally carry at government run colleges. (Still wrangling a bit over OC vs CC.)
    Permit free car carry of concealed and loaded handguns and concealed long guns.
    Parking lot preemption to protect most private sector employees from anti-gun employment policies reaching into their private cars.
    Recognition of all permits issued nationwide.
    Strong defense of habitation laws and stand your ground laws.
    Other than churches and private homes, private bans on possession of guns (including at businesses) carry no more legal weight than a private policy regarding dress code.
    No legal duty to notify police you are legally carrying a gun.
    And so on and so forth.

    In fact, I argue that once a person has a permit to carry, Utah has the best guns laws, in total, in the entire nation. And we continue to improve.

    Quote Originally Posted by GenkiSudo View Post

    Just takes time. In a decade we'll collectively look back and wonder why it took so long for gays to legally be married.
    I don't intend to start another off topic or heated discussion here. But I point out that while the tide is clearly in our favor on RKBA, the tide is most decidedly not in favor of changing the definition of "Marriage" to include same-sex couples (or more than two partners, or incestuous partners, etc). In fact, since the Hawaiin Supreme Court heard their case in 1993, some 30 States have amended their State Constitutions to specifically define marriage as one man and one woman. Another 10 States have adopted statutes specifically limiting marriage to a man and a woman. In contrast, since a few judges forced the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004, only 5 States, DC, and one Indian Tribe issue same-sex marriage licenses. Three additional States recognize same-sex "marriages" performed elsewhere. Most of these are the results of judicial fiat, with only one or two being the work of the elected legislators. I do not know of a single instance of the public at large voting to redefine marriage beyond one man and one woman. In several States, the public has voted to grant some form of legal recognition of same sex couples such as "civil unions."

    In contrast, since Florida adopted their shall issue permit system in 1987, we have seen 37 States adopt shall issue laws. Toss in a couple of "may issue" States that have become de facto shall issue, plus Vermont and well over 40 States allow any law abiding adult the effective ability to legally carry a gun for self defense.

    The RKBA is an enumerated right, codified in our federal constitution over 200 years ago. It is likewise enumerated in most of our State constitutions. It is a right recognized(for freemen) at least as far back as Magna Carta back nearly 800 years.

    In contrast, there is no historic evidence for any "right" to define marriage as including persons of the same sex. Even societies in which homosexual sexual conduct was widely accepted (such as the Classics that went so far as to extol the benefits of pederasty) did not grant marriage-like benefits to such relationships. In short, until about 20 years ago, nobody seems to have ever publicly considered that marriage might include anything other than a man and a woman. Even polygamous marriages are between a man and a woman with the multiple wives having no special legal rights relative to each other. And inter-racial marriage is the historic norm with the US's anti-miscegenation laws being the historic anomaly, an ugly throwback to our history of race based slavery.

    RKBA brings demonstrable benefits not only to the individual who chooses to bear arms, but to society at large.

    While the benefits of legal marriage might be of great benefit to homosexual couples, there is not yet evidence that society benefits from granting such legal benefits to same-sex couples. The societal benefits of marriage between man and woman, OTOH, are well documented and understood.

    Simply put, one cannot honestly compare the right to keep and bear arms with the desire to change the definition of marriage. They are not comparable in terms of the current or recent political landscape. They do not compare in terms of their history of being an accepted right. They do not compare in terms of academic research demonstrating benefits to society.

    And among those who support RKBA, there will be differences of opinion as to the proper course to take on the definition of marriage. With the exception of Vermont, methinks most of the States that have moved toward changing the definition of marriage or otherwise granting specific legal benefit to homosexual coupling are those few States that remain most hostile toward RKBA. OTOH, those States that have been best on RKBA have often taken the strongest action to prevent being forced to change their definition of marriage.

    I, personally, intend to do all within my legal power to see that neither my State nor federal government ever changes the definition of marriage or to otherwise grant any legal benefits for homosexual coupling. I care not what consenting adults do in private. And I will demand my government leave such adults in peace. But I will also demand that my government, my agent, NOT grant on my behalf any official recognition, reward, or encouragement for homosexual coupling.

    I respect those who civilly disagree with me. But it is obvious that we are not going to change each others' minds on the issue so I respectfully request that we do our level best to avoid bringing up the issue on this forumn. It does nothing to advance RKBA and merely divides us needlessly.

    Charles

Posting Permissions

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