yo101jimmy
Regular Member
So has anyone posted the new laws for Utah 2011? I didnt see anything but might have missed it...
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
New Gun laws?
- Thread starter yo101jimmy
- Start date
rpyne
Regular Member
I am sure that the various organizations are still analyzing the legislation that was passed, but here is a quick synopsis of the changes that will affect the average gun owner:
HB 75(S1) removes the roving GFSZ that was created anywhere a school function such as a field trip was taking place (good). It will take a more in depth analysis, but it appears that it also widened the definition of a school (potentially bad). Governor signed.
HB 257(1) Expands the list of acceptable training courses for CFP instructors (good). Allows BCI to deny or revoke a CFP if the submitted fingerprints are not useable for an FBI records search (bad for people with no or difficult fingerprints). Passed legislature but not signed or vetoed by governor.
SB 36(S1) Requires that a nonresident applying for or renewing a Utah CFP must posses a CFP issued by their state of residence if he or she "resides in a state that recognizes the validity of the Utah permit or has reciprocity with Utah's concealed firearm permit law (bad, Utah doing the job of gutless and/or anti-gun legislators from other states)" Governor signed.
There were a couple of other gun related bills but they don't apply to the average citizen.
ItsaSecret
New member
HB 75 analysis
I created an account just to answer this post, so, just to clarify, HB 75 doesn't expand anything, except freedom. There is nothing bad in this bill. It modifies the definition of "on or about school premises" (locations in which you can not possess a firearm) from crazy-broad, covering most of urban Utah, to much more reasonable and identifiable areas. Would we have liked to have gotten more? Sure, but what we did get was all movement in the right direction. There are no steps backwards in HB 75. Everyone who's reading the Utah section of OCDO ought to be thanking Curt Oda for getting this bill through.
Here's the nitty gritty:
Joe Citizen is generally prohibited from possessing a firearm "on or about school premises". What does that consist of? Right now (until HB 75 takes effect) the answer is found in 76-3-203.2
HB 75 will move the definition of "on or about school premises," at least for purposes of possessing a firearm, into the GFSZ Act (75-10-505.5) and modifies it to read:
The practical effects of this bill (from current law) are:
(i) is left alone
(ii) is reduced from "in a public or private vocational school or postsecondary institution or on the grounds of any of those schools or institutions" to "in a public or private institution of higher education; or on the grounds of a public or private institution of higher education" [removing vocational schools]
(iii) is eliminated entirely
(iv) is reduced from "in or on the grounds of a preschool or child-care facility" to "inside the building where a preschool or child care is being held, if the entire building is being used for the operation of the preschool or child care; or if only a portion of a building is being used to operate a preschool or child care, in that room or rooms where the preschool or child care operation is being held" [removing grounds and non-child-care portions (think of gyms, rec centers, or office buildings with daycares)]
(v) is eliminated entirely
I created an account just to answer this post, so, just to clarify, HB 75 doesn't expand anything, except freedom. There is nothing bad in this bill. It modifies the definition of "on or about school premises" (locations in which you can not possess a firearm) from crazy-broad, covering most of urban Utah, to much more reasonable and identifiable areas. Would we have liked to have gotten more? Sure, but what we did get was all movement in the right direction. There are no steps backwards in HB 75. Everyone who's reading the Utah section of OCDO ought to be thanking Curt Oda for getting this bill through.
Here's the nitty gritty:
Joe Citizen is generally prohibited from possessing a firearm "on or about school premises". What does that consist of? Right now (until HB 75 takes effect) the answer is found in 76-3-203.2
Code:
(i) in a public or private elementary, secondary, or on the grounds of any of those schools;
(ii) in a public or private vocational school or postsecondary institution or on the grounds of any of those schools or institutions;
(iii) in those portions of any building, park, stadium, or other structure or grounds which are, at the time of the act, being used for an activity sponsored by or through a school or institution under Subsections (1)(a)(i) and (ii);
(iv) in or on the grounds of a preschool or child-care facility; and
(v) within 1,000 feet of any structure, facility, or grounds included in Subsections (1)(a)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv).HB 75 will move the definition of "on or about school premises," at least for purposes of possessing a firearm, into the GFSZ Act (75-10-505.5) and modifies it to read:
Code:
(1) As used in this section, "on or about school premises" means:
(a) (i) in a public or private elementary or secondary school; or
(ii) on the grounds of any of those schools;
(b) (i) in a public or private institution of higher education; or
(ii) on the grounds of a public or private institution of higher education; and
(iii) (A) inside the building where a preschool or child care is being held, if the entire
building is being used for the operation of the preschool or child care; or
(B) if only a portion of a building is being used to operate a preschool or child care, in
that room or rooms where the preschool or child care operation is being held.The practical effects of this bill (from current law) are:
(i) is left alone
(ii) is reduced from "in a public or private vocational school or postsecondary institution or on the grounds of any of those schools or institutions" to "in a public or private institution of higher education; or on the grounds of a public or private institution of higher education" [removing vocational schools]
(iii) is eliminated entirely
(iv) is reduced from "in or on the grounds of a preschool or child-care facility" to "inside the building where a preschool or child care is being held, if the entire building is being used for the operation of the preschool or child care; or if only a portion of a building is being used to operate a preschool or child care, in that room or rooms where the preschool or child care operation is being held" [removing grounds and non-child-care portions (think of gyms, rec centers, or office buildings with daycares)]
(v) is eliminated entirely
Last edited:
rpyne
Regular Member
Herein lies the potential problem. there is no clear definition of "institution of higher education". Depending on what the courts may decide, it might include anything from a private single course school or continuing education seminar to a beauty school to a university. I can find no legal definition nor court ruling that says that a vocational school is NOT an "institution of higher learning".
ItsaSecret
New member
Nonsense.
1) Institutions of higher education are defined in a number of places. I'd argue for 53B-1-102 (see additionally 53B-16-401) or 53B-2-101, but there's also a list at http://www.utah.gov/education/colleges.html
2) Even if it were not defined, we're running at least as severe of a risk (of an overly-broad judicial intepretation) with the old "vocational school or postsecondary institution" language. Probably moreso because it explicitly mentioned vocational schools.
The point is, the new definition is no worse than "vocational school or postsecondary institution" and I think it is, in fact, better in a couple of ways.
Could it have been even better still? Sure. If we'd had enough gun owners hounding their legislators via phone and email we might have been able to round up the votes to entirely remove colleges and universities from the definition of "on or about school premises," as the first draft of HB 75 did. Unfortunately, too many of us sat on the sidelines and didn't get involved and urge our legislators to stand up for the RKBA, so this is all we could get this year. It's still a great bill with a number of positive benefits and no negatives. Next year I hope more of us will be involved, and encourage our like-minded families, friends, and associates to get involved as well.
Last edited:
rpyne
Regular Member
As has been explained to me by my representative, Unless a definition is contained in the same section as it is used or the section where it is used specifically references the definition, it does not automatically apply. So, the definitions given in title 53B do not apply unless or until they are either confirmed by case law or 76-10-505.5 is changed to reference the definition.
As for being involved, I can assure you that I keep track of what goes on in the legislature and make sure my representative and senator know without any question where I stand on issues and how I expect them to approach those issues.
My greatest disappointment from this session is that HB 424 was filed so late in the session and went nowhere. It is an issue that we have been battling over for several years and only seems to get worse. After similar legislation being brought forward at the end of last year's session and going nowhere, I would have expected it to have been filed early.
As for being involved, I can assure you that I keep track of what goes on in the legislature and make sure my representative and senator know without any question where I stand on issues and how I expect them to approach those issues.
My greatest disappointment from this session is that HB 424 was filed so late in the session and went nowhere. It is an issue that we have been battling over for several years and only seems to get worse. After similar legislation being brought forward at the end of last year's session and going nowhere, I would have expected it to have been filed early.
utbagpiper
Banned
In the absence of a solid legally defined definition, the courts will look for obvious definitions elsewhere (such as elsewhere in code) or in common usage (the dictionary trick). They will also look to legislative intent. All clearly points to a definition of "colleges and universities, but not tech, vocational, or similar schools".
In any event it is hard to imagine how the new language could possibly be interpreted to include any more places than was included in the prior language.
If it does, we will fix it.
We are all disappointed that we did not fix the whole question of disorderly conduct. That one will take one more year. We have and will continue to learn from mistakes and will continue to make progress each year. Each year will likely seem to have very little progress when viewed in isolation. But when stacked on top of several years, the progress is far more obvious.
Consider what we have done just in the last 5 years (permit free car carry, parking lot preemption, elimination of the 1000' zone around schools, etc) much less going back slightly over 15 to where we first obtained non-discriminatory permits, we have forced the DWR and school districts to comply with State preemption, and so on. We have maintained access to bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. We have maintained access to schools, city buildings, the capital, and most other non-federal government buildings. We require proper storage for most non-federal locations that are secure areas. And gaining National Park carry at the federal level was a huge win locally with all of our NPS land.
Charles
whatwouldyoudo
New member
out of curiosity, when can Utah realistically expect this passed legislation to go into effect?
rpyne
Regular Member
All three of these take effect on 10 May 2011
This is what I'm looking forward to.
And remember folks....baby steps. It's a process, not an event.
jpm84092
Regular Member
And while this is an open carry forum, please keep in mind that the whole matter of the Utah and Federal Gun Free School Zones (GFSZ) is moot for a person possessing a valid State of Utah Concealed Firearm Permit, whether carrying open or concealed.
Gpaw45
New member
Utah Gun Laws
As Utah goes they will drag their feet but when it comes to confrontting someone who is carring legally they will then let us know what the law is. I have nothing agaist Law Enforcement (Several friends back in Texas are Sherrifs, Police and one Texas Ranger) But up here they tend to make me alittle nervous. You should be able to walk up to a cop to ask a question with out be looked at as if you are a criminal.
Gpaw
As Utah goes they will drag their feet but when it comes to confrontting someone who is carring legally they will then let us know what the law is. I have nothing agaist Law Enforcement (Several friends back in Texas are Sherrifs, Police and one Texas Ranger) But up here they tend to make me alittle nervous. You should be able to walk up to a cop to ask a question with out be looked at as if you are a criminal.
Gpaw
rpyne
Regular Member
Police do not know the law, it doesn't matter if you are in Texas, Utah or any other state, police will only know that small portion of the law that they have taken time to learn. For that matter, I challenge you to find anyone, even an attorney, that knows all of the laws. The volume of law is just too big for any one person to know all of it.
In Utah, the laws are readily available for anyone to read and research. Simply browser to http://le.utah.gov/UtahCode/title.jsp or google Utah Code. It is written in plain language and is not terribly hard to read and understand.