Firearms On UTA

rpyne said:

The difference is that the UTA Ordinance is VOID under state law. See the previous quotes of UC 53-5a-102. UTA is in clear violation of state law by the very act of creating the ordinance.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. But again, even if you are right, it makes no material difference. Even if the ordinance is invalid, the State statute it mirrors most certainly is not (at least not until we get some court to give us a ruling that fully respects "shall not be infringed").

Also, to violate a law with no penalty attached is to suffer what consequence exactly? Yes, State laws prohibits local government from enacting gun laws. But without a penalty, what good is it over than to render those local laws void?

Bottom line, State statute prohibits guns on UTA unless the person has a permit. Violation carries a real penalty.

State statute may or may not render the UTA ordinance unenforceable (one might argue that by mirroring State statute UTA has not actually attempted to regulate guns at all, but is merely enforcing existing State law), but certainly imposed no penalty on UTA even if they did enact a blatantly illegal ordinance.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Preemption won't cover this as the State statute bans firearms unless a person has a permit to carry. In other words, the legislature has given UTA the statutory authority to ban firearms that are being carried without a permit.

snip

Click to expand...

Actually, the State Legislature has said via the Uniform firearms laws "We own this and will control it" and in the other quoted law said, 'Dangerous weapons or firearms are FELONIES unless you have a permit to carry concealed, and some other exclusions.

The UTA has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT AT ALL. The State Legislature did it... all of it!

Not breaking your chops just saying!

This reply was done before the thread included the portion from the UTA handbook on weapons WHICH violates the State preemption and is void!

JoeSparky said:

Actually, the State Legislature has said via the Uniform firearms laws "We own this and will control it" and in the other quoted law said, 'Dangerous weapons or firearms are FELONIES unless you have a permit to carry concealed, and some other exclusions.

The UTA has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT AT ALL. The State Legislature did it... all of it!

Not breaking your chops just saying!

This reply was done before the thread included the portion from the UTA handbook on weapons WHICH violates the State preemption and is void!

Click to expand...

Great. So you can be prosecuted for a State felony rather than a violation of UTA rules and ordinances. Something about a Pyrrhic victory comes to mind.

I'm as strong an advocate for State preemption as anyone. In most cases it does us well.

But in this case, the practical effect does us no good. So rather than wasting time getting UTA to repeal an ordinance that may be void but happens to mirror a State statute that most certainly is not, we ought to FIRST get the State statute repealed.

Just saying, let's pick our battles wisely to maximize the benefit from our limited available resources.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Great. So you can be prosecuted for a State felony rather than a violation of UTA rules and ordinances. Something about a Pyrrhic victory comes to mind.

I'm as strong an advocate for State preemption as anyone. In most cases it does us well.

But in this case, the practical effect does us no good. So rather than wasting time getting UTA to repeal an ordinance that may be void but happens to mirror a State statute that most certainly is not, we ought to FIRST get the State statute repealed.

Just saying, let's pick our battles wisely to maximize the benefit from our limited available resources.

Charles

Click to expand...

And NOT disagreeing with you.