Rep Wimmer to carry Constitutional Carry Bill 2011 legislature

[utbagpiper]

HB 129 passed out of committee today. However it was first amended such that it
now represents a significant danger to not only our RKBA, but also our rights to
privacy.

The amendment requires ALL persons lawfully in possession of a "dangerous
weapon" to notify any peace officer who makes official contact. Utah has NEVER
had a statutory duty to notify. We had a rule--unsupported by law--that
required permit holders to notify. That rule was dropped a couple of years ago.

This amendment, if it becomes law, will require EVERY law abiding person
carrying a gun, or a knife, or pepper spray or any other "dangerous
weapons"--whether it be pursuant to a permit, inside your own car or even in
your own home (with or without a permit), or as per "constitutional carry"--to
tell any officer who makes lawful contact that you are armed. That includes if
you are sitting down to lunch with your anti-gun boss, family member, or client
and a police officer asks if you saw a guy in a red jacket run by. You will be
legally required to inform him you are armed.

Sad experience has shown that in far too many cases, police officers decide any
non-LEO who is armed must be disarmed as long as the official contact continues.
Hence, rather than leaving a gun safely holstered (or in a glove box) during
routine traffic stops, officers all too often require the firearm to be
unholstered and handled in some manner.

Notably, under the 5th amendment and binding US Supreme Court decisions, a
person ILLEGALLY carrying a gun (in this case, someone younger than 21 or a
prohibited person, or if you happen to be carrying in a prohibited area) CANNOT
be required to inform police of his illegal conduct. So the language of this
amendment explicitly (and under binding precedence) applies ONLY to those
lawfully in possession of a gun or other dangerous weapon. It has ZERO effect
on criminals.

A more detailed alert from GOUtah! will be forthcoming, but please now call Rep.
Wimmer and Rep. Curt Oda and let them know you have to oppose HB 129 unless the
"requirement to notify" is removed from the bill.

Thanks

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

After attending the meeting tonight. Its has passed 7-6. But with an amendment. Its says we must notify a leo if we carry concealed. But this only apllies to this bill and not the concealed permit people.

I believe it applies to both those carrying pursuant to a permit and those carrying without need of a permit in public locations. It may not apply to persons carrying pursuant to extended-domain (i.e. permit-free car carry) or carrying permit free on their own property or in a location and manner where neither permit not this new exemption is required (such as when hunting afield). However, it may be an unpleasant conversation with a cop, prosecutor, or even judge to convince them that as a permit holder, you were not actually carrying pursuant to a permit in any given situation.

Bottom line, there is no need for this amendment or statutory requirement. It should be removed or the entire bill scrapped for the year.

Charles

 

[rpyne]

I believe it applies to both those carrying pursuant to a permit and those carrying without need of a permit in public locations. It may not apply to persons carrying pursuant to extended-domain (i.e. permit-free car carry) or carrying permit free on their own property or in a location and manner where neither permit not this new exemption is required (such as when hunting afield). However, it may be an unpleasant conversation with a cop, prosecutor, or even judge to convince them that as a permit holder, you were not actually carrying pursuant to a permit in any given situation.

Bottom line, there is no need for this amendment or statutory requirement. It should be removed or the entire bill scrapped for the year.

Charles

First, I agree completely and have already written to Rep. Wimmer and Oda, and to my own Rep. expressing my opposition to the bill as it was reported out of committee.

I took the time to listen to the audio of the committee and would note that they think they put in language so the requirement to notify applies only to those without a CFP. Which in reality makes its only real purpose entrapment.