Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Utah bill reflects problem with WA 9.41.270(1)

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Utah bill reflects problem with WA 9.41.270(1)

    Utah lawmakers will consider legislation next month that would remove criminal penalties for merely carrying a firearm in public, in a lawful manner, whether openly or concealed, prohibiting the armed citizen from being charged with, for example, disorderly conduct.

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ington-statute

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315
    This is a very interesting proposal. Even more so than the original article suggests, this would be good for Washington. If you look down around Line 45, it also includes a preemption statute that is more widespread than Washington's. We have been talking here about the fact that state agencies are free to create their own rules (Universities and Worksource come to mind), but the Utah bill expands that to "local authority, political subdivision, municipality, or any other state entity". Be nice if ours was written that way.

    I think it's time to sit down with some legislators. I am planning on talking to Doug Ericksen soon about the bill he has introduced before to get a renewal notice sent out for CPLs. Maybe we can convince him and some others to introduce this type of legislation.

    Here is the full text of the bill.

    40 (1) In the absence of additional threatening behavior, the otherwise lawful possession
    41 of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, is not a violation of
    42 Section 10-8-47 , 10-8-50 , 76-6-206 , 76-8-703 , 76-8-704 , 76-8-705 , 76-9-102 , 76-9-103 ,
    43 76-9-104 , 76-9-106 , 76-10-506 , or 76-10-507 .
    44 (2) Except where explicit authority to regulate firearms or other dangerous weapons
    45 has been granted by the Legislature, a local authority, political subdivision, municipality, or any
    46 other state entity may not enact, maintain, or enforce a law, ordinance, rule, regulation, code of
    47 conduct, or contractual obligation that limits or prevents the otherwise lawful possession of a
    48 firearm or other dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed.
    49 (3) If explicit authority has been granted by the Legislature to a local authority,
    50 political subdivision, municipality, or other state entity to regulate firearms or other dangerous
    51 weapons, any law, ordinance, rule, regulation, code of conduct, or contractual obligation based
    52 on that explicit grant of authority shall:
    53 (a) reference the statute that grants the authority to regulate the firearm or other
    54 dangerous weapon;
    55 (b) detail specifically the conduct involving a firearm or other dangerous weapon that
    56 is limited or prohibited; and
    57 (c) use the term firearm if the prohibition or limitation only involves a firearm.
    58 (4) A firearm or dangerous weapon law, ordinance, rule, regulation, code of conduct,

    59 or contractual obligation enacted, made, adopted, or entered into by a local authority, political
    60 subdivision, municipality, or other state entity that does not meet the requirements of
    61 Subsection (3) is void.

  3. #3
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043
    Go Utah!

    Thanks for pointing out the obvious and possible unintended effects .270 can have on CC Dave. Staunch CCers should keep that in mind, that .270 isnt just a threat to OC.
    Last edited by FMCDH; 12-28-2011 at 10:43 PM.

Posting Permissions

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