Firearms On UTA

I remember reading something here that there is a prohibition of firearms on UTA. I was reading through the "Rider Rules" and there is no mention of firearms being prohibited. I also tried the "Safety and Security" section and have failed to find it there also. So far have been unsuccessful. Could some one point me in the right direction?

JerL said:

I remember reading something here that there is a prohibition of firearms on UTA. I was reading through the "Rider Rules" and there is no mention of firearms being prohibited. I also tried the "Safety and Security" section and have failed to find it there also. So far have been unsuccessful. Could some one point me in the right direction?

Click to expand...

UTA is a subdivision of the State of Utah and therefore "may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property" unless specifically authorized by statue. (UCA 53-5a-102)

As far as I know, it's perfectly okay, might get some weird looks and maybe a chat with an officer, but that's about it.

Wait!

Whoa! hold up there. UCC § 76-10-1504 says:

76-10-1504. Bus hijacking -- Assault with intent to commit hijacking -- Use of a dangerous weapon or firearm -- Penalties.
(1) (a) A person is guilty of bus hijacking if the person seizes or exercises control, by force or violence or threat of force or violence, of a bus within the state.
(b) Bus hijacking is a first degree felony.
(2) (a) A person is guilty of assault with the intent to commit bus hijacking if the person intimidates, threatens, or commits assault or battery toward a driver, attendant, guard, or any other person in control of a bus so as to interfere with the performance of duties by the person.
(b) Assault with the intent to commit bus hijacking is a second degree felony.
(3) A person who, in the commission of assault with intent to commit bus hijacking, uses a dangerous weapon, as defined in Section 76-1-601, is guilty of a first degree felony.
(4) (a) A person who boards a bus with a concealed dangerous weapon or firearm upon his person or effects is guilty of a third degree felony. (b) The prohibition of Subsection (4)(a) does not apply to:
(i) individuals listed in Subsections 76-10-523(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e);
(ii) a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon; or
(iii) persons in possession of weapons or firearms with the consent of the owner of the bus or the owner's agent, or the lessee or bailee of the bus.

Click to expand...

ItsaSecret said:

Whoa! hold up there. UCC § 76-10-1504 says:

76-10-1504. Bus hijacking -- Assault with intent to commit hijacking -- Use of a dangerous weapon or firearm -- Penalties.
(1) (a) A person is guilty of bus hijacking if the person seizes or exercises control, by force or violence or threat of force or violence, of a bus within the state.
(b) Bus hijacking is a first degree felony.
(2) (a) A person is guilty of assault with the intent to commit bus hijacking if the person intimidates, threatens, or commits assault or battery toward a driver, attendant, guard, or any other person in control of a bus so as to interfere with the performance of duties by the person.
(b) Assault with the intent to commit bus hijacking is a second degree felony.
(3) A person who, in the commission of assault with intent to commit bus hijacking, uses a dangerous weapon, as defined in Section 76-1-601, is guilty of a first degree felony.
(4) (a) A person who boards a bus with a concealed dangerous weapon or firearm upon his person or effects is guilty of a third degree felony. (b) The prohibition of Subsection (4)(a) does not apply to:
(i) individuals listed in Subsections 76-10-523(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e);
(ii) a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon; or
(iii) persons in possession of weapons or firearms with the consent of the owner of the bus or the owner's agent, or the lessee or bailee of the bus.

Click to expand...

You skipped the part bolded above. So, first, (4)(a) applies _only_ to concealed weapons and (4)(b)(ii) exempts those with a concealed weapons permit. There is no mention of a prohibition of open carry.

rpyne said:

You skipped the part bolded above. So, first, (4)(a) applies _only_ to concealed weapons and (4)(b)(ii) exempts those with a concealed weapons permit. There is no mention of a prohibition of open carry.

Click to expand...

I didn't skip it. The original question was, "... there is a prohibition of firearms on UTA ... Could some one point me in the right direction?" I was pointing out the prohibition. I understand full well that CFP holders are exempt.

And to be clear, the bolded portion applies to "a concealed dangerous weapon or firearm" That makes the question of OC a bit of a messy one, at least in my mind. One could interpret the statute as "(concealed dangerous weapon) or (firearm)", in which case OC would be prohibited, at least by those without a CFP or other exemption. Last I heard, this was UTA's understanding. The other possibility, the one you and I are likely to favor, would be an interpretation like "concealed (dangerous weapon or firearm)" which would mean that most everyone could OC.

I doubt there's any case law that specifies which interpration is correct, and if someone decides to push the issue by making themselves a test case, I would prefer that they were informed of the general prohibition, it's possible interpretations, and the very real possibility that a judge might pick the other interpretation and Mr. Test Case winds up with a felony(!) conviction.

By way of more information, UTA has published an Ordinance Manual which states:

...

Section 2 - Class IV Infractions

A. Breach of the Peace/Disorderly Conduct. In or upon a Transit Facility or Transit Vehicle, no person shall breach the peace or threaten to breach the peace by:

i. brandishing or discharging a firearm or other Weapon.

...

Section 4 - Class VI Infractions

A person who commits any of the following offenses is guilty of a Class VI Infraction and may be subject to permanent exclusion from UTA’s entire system pursuant to Chapter 7 below.

...

C. Weapons. No person shall display, brandish, or discharge a weapon in or upon a Transit Facility or Transit Vehicle. In the absence of a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon, no person shall enter a Transit Facility or board a Transit Vehicle with such concealed weapon.

...

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised to hear them accusing OCers of "brandishing" (even though no such statute exists by that name in Utah).

Itsa, do your research, I will not get into a battle of wits with an unarmed person. While "brandishing" is not defined in Utah law, it is well defined in any dictionary as being a menacing or aggressive behavior, open carry in a holster does not fit the definition. UTA has in the past tried to enforce their own opinion and has been put in their place. State law is VERY clear that they have no authority to make their own ordinance restricting the lawful carrying of firearms.

rpyne said:

Itsa, do your research, I will not get into a battle of wits with an unarmed person. While "brandishing" is not defined in Utah law, it is well defined in any dictionary as being a menacing or aggressive behavior, open carry in a holster does not fit the definition. UTA has in the past tried to enforce their own opinion and has been put in their place. State law is VERY clear that they have no authority to make their own ordinance restricting the lawful carrying of firearms.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, I've done my own research. If you'll notice, I'm the one that responded to the original poster with factual citations from relevant state statutes and UTA's "Ordinance Manual." I was merely trying to share with the group members that (while I completely agree with you that peaceful OCing of a holstered sidearm doesn't even begin to approach the dictionary definition of "brandishing" and if I were on a jury I would vote for acquittal) a judge / jury of one's peers may not decide it so clearly in our favor and might even wind up convicting a UTA OCer and the consequences of a felony conviction are enormous.

Ok, this is the text that I remember. Now I have another question. It refers to having permission of the owner of the bus operator. (I get the felling that they had private bus lines when this law was drafted i.e. Greyhound and other such bus companies. Not that that would preclude UTA.) If the state of Utah is the owner and operator of UTA, do I have implied permission from them due to the preemption clause? Also when I asked the question I was taking Frontrunner and Trax. I didn't set foot on a bus. So I'm still a little confused.

Thanks for the help so far.

JerL said:

Ok, this is the text that I remember. Now I have another question. It refers to having permission of the owner of the bus operator. (I get the felling that they had private bus lines when this law was drafted i.e. Greyhound and other such bus companies. Not that that would preclude UTA.) If the state of Utah is the owner and operator of UTA, do I have implied permission from them due to the preemption clause? Also when I asked the question I was taking Frontrunner and Trax. I didn't set foot on a bus. So I'm still a little confused.

Thanks for the help so far.

Click to expand...

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.

Those with a permit are legal, though they may expect some hassling from UTA if they OC.

I fully expect that those who carry without a permit and are found out can expect to be prosecuted. If someone wants to be a test case, please do so only after completely understanding the odds of being convicted, the costs of an effective defense in felony cases (I'm told family and friends pricing starts at $10,000 and goes up), the lifetime ramifications for a felony conviction, and the real risk of setting a bad court precedence and creating a bad PR situation for lawful possession of a gun. And if a prosecutor actually thinks he might lose the case and end up with a pro-RKBA precedence, he can pretty much drop the case at any time thus denying that precedence. Sure you get to walk--having dropped $10k for a lawyer. But there is no guarantee the next guy, or even the next time you do it, they won't play the game again. How many $10k bundles do you have sitting around?

It is my strongly held opinion that at this time, any energy someone might devote to such an effort would be infinitely better spent working to get the law changed so as to allow permit free possession of a firearm on UTA, or at least to strengthen OC with a permit as a first step.

I prefer to avoid UTA for a host of reasons including the fact that its buses, trains, and parking lots strike me as one of those places--kind of like a bar at closing time--I am most likely to need to use my gun.

If you must use UTA, I strongly encourage you to get a permit to carry and then CC or CCC until we get strongly protections for OC in places like UTA.

Charles

I don't plan on being a test case. I just want to understand the law better. To me this is something that seems to need to be clarified. I am not sure the law cited (76-10-1504) is applicable to UTA buses. I could see it being used if someone hijacked a bus, but it does not state that open carry of a firearm is illegal. No where does it mention trains. I don't mean to get technical but that seem to me that if something is not specifically outlawed, then by default it is legal. I am not trying to argue here, I am wondering where the state gave UTA the authority to prohibit firearms. Is there another law somewhere that hasn't been cited?

Uta

Keep reading it will give you the correct information 76-10-1507

As far as Open carry goes it is legal but it will cost you the frustration of a ticket. I know several people including myself working on getting this straightened out.

It takes time to resolve the issue and train the officers. I am hoping that it gets resolved very soon. So anyone can open carry with a valid Utah CFP and not be hassled.

It currently a felony to carry a firearm on TRAX BUS or Front Runner without a current CFP.

OK, I hadn't read 1507. What can I do to help get the law changed? Do I need to put a bug in my state reps ear?

I think I finally found what I what I was looking for. It is in the Ordinance Manual of the UTA.

Ordinance Manual
Adopted May 27, 2009

Section 4 - Class VI Infractions

C. Weapons. No person shall display, brandish, or discharge a weapon in or upon a Transit Facility or Transit Vehicle. In the absence of a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon, no person shall enter a Transit Facility or board a Transit Vehicle with such concealed weapon.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

JerL said:

I think I finally found what I what I was looking for. It is in the Ordinance Manual of the UTA.

Ordinance Manual
Adopted May 27, 2009

Section 4 - Class VI Infractions
C. Weapons. No person shall display, brandish, or discharge a weapon in or upon a Transit Facility or Transit Vehicle. In the absence of a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon, no person shall enter a Transit Facility or board a Transit Vehicle with such concealed weapon.

Click to expand...

Without statutory authority to create such an ordinance (which I have not found) their ordinance is void.

53-5a-102. Uniform firearm laws.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right under Article I, Section 6 of the Utah Constitution, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform civil and criminal firearm laws throughout the state.
(2) Except as specifically provided by state law, a local authority or state entity may not:
(a) prohibit an individual from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping a firearm at the individual's place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in the individual's possession or lawfully under the individual's control; or
(b) require an individual to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(3) In conjunction with Title 76, Chapter 10, Part 5, Weapons, this section is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities.
(4) All authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities.
(5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) "firearm" has the same meaning as defined in Subsection 76-10-501(9); and
(b) "local authority or state entity" includes public school districts, public schools, and state institutions of higher education.
(7) Nothing in this section restricts or expands private property rights.

Click to expand...

While the legislature did place restrictions on firearms on buses (including trains by reference to 17B-2a-802) and in bus terminals (76-10-1500 et. seq), it did not give any regulatory authority over firearms to UTA.

Well I have written UTA for more information, but have not yet received word back yet. I may have to call them in the next few days. This definitely seems like something that needs to be addressed by the state legislature.

rpyne said:

Without statutory authority to create such an ordinance (which I have not found) their ordinance is void.

While the legislature did place restrictions on firearms on buses (including trains by reference to 17B-2a-802) and in bus terminals (76-10-1500 et. seq), it did not give any regulatory authority over firearms to UTA.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the material difference would be between being charged under UTA's ordinance or being charged under State statute for the same offense. Other than the UTA attempting to ban the "display" of a firearm, everything else they are banning is already illegal (if we accept that "brandishing" of a firearm is essentialy the same as what State law bans as "threatening with a firearm").

Frankly, the solution is to ask why otherwise legal guns, carried without a permit, should be banned from buses or trains in the first place. If I can legally OC a gun, sans permit into the State capital, why exactly do UTA buses and trains need to ban them.

Charles

"C. Weapons. No person shall display, brandish, or discharge a weapon in or upon a Transit Facility or Transit Vehicle. In the absence of a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon, no person shall enter a Transit Facility or board a Transit Vehicle with such concealed weapon."

The way I read this it says you may not take a weapon out of your pocket, holster, etc and scare people with it, or discharge it.

The second sentence says: You cannot carry concealed if you do not have a permit. ("....with such concealed weapon") It says NOTHING about OC. It says you cannot carry concealed on the buss without a permit...duh

hermannr said:

"C. Weapons. No person shall display, brandish, or discharge a weapon in or upon a Transit Facility or Transit Vehicle. In the absence of a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon, no person shall enter a Transit Facility or board a Transit Vehicle with such concealed weapon."

The way I read this it says you may not take a weapon out of your pocket, holster, etc and scare people with it, or discharge it.

The second sentence says: You cannot carry concealed if you do not have a permit. ("....with such concealed weapon") It says NOTHING about OC. It says you cannot carry concealed on the buss without a permit...duh

Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter what the UTA Ordinance says because it is VOID! UTA has absolutely NO authority to create any ordinance restricting the right to keep and bear arms. See the previous quotes of UC 53-5a-102(4) & (5).

utbagpiper said:

I'm not sure what the material difference would be between being charged under UTA's ordinance or being charged under State statute for the same offense. Other than the UTA attempting to ban the "display" of a firearm, everything else they are banning is already illegal (if we accept that "brandishing" of a firearm is essentialy the same as what State law bans as "threatening with a firearm").

Click to expand...

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.

Even though Utah Code doesn't define "brandishing" the dictionary does define it as displaying in a threatening manner.