legalheat said:
Mitch has been a role model of mine for a long time as well. I was just discussing it with him on Facebook and he said he supports the law as a good step in the right direction (generally agreeing with Charles) and I can certainly respect that. Again, I may be in the minority on this one but I've read an awful lot of gun laws (for every state) and I don't like the way this one is written at all. Hope to see an amendment.
Mitch almost always takes a very conservative approach to gun laws. His books provide interpretions of law such that following his advice it would be all but impossible to find oneself charged with, much less convicted of a crime. Many on this list take a far more liberal approach to existing gun laws. So if Mitch is saying this bill is a good step in the right direction, receive that remembering how he generally interprets gun laws.
In like fashion, I and the others at GOUtah! who have spent the last 10 to 15 years analyzing every gun related bill (and many that don't at first glance appear to be gun related) introduced into Utah have made it a habit to apply the standard attributed to Lyndon Johnson (of all people) that (to paraphrase a bit) "Legislation should be analyzed not in light of the good it will do do if properly applied, but rather in light of harms imposed if improperly applied."
I, and they, have made it a habit to oppose virtually every expansion of felonies (and DV misdemeanors) on the principle that a felony (or DV) conviction is a lifetime loss of RKBA and there needs to be a very high bar set for that. We opposed (unsuccessfully, unfortunately) laws that were otherwise very popular including with some on this list including the expansion of the domestic protective orders to mere dating relationships. We opposed (unsuccessfully, unfortunately) the elevation of animal torture to a felony. We opposed (with some success) efforts to make any simple "assault" of a first responder a felony.
We are the ones frequently called "paranoid" for asserting that some law is likely to have negative effects on RKBA.
In 15 years, I've yet to support a law that ended up being bad for RKBA.
I have one notable mistake in opposing a law that turned out to be really good for RKBA. When Utah first recognized all out-of-State permits, a last minute amendment limited the recognition period to 90 days (I think it was, maybe it was 60). The sponsor assured us that was necessary for passage, that it was a step in the right direction, and that in a few years we could extend or eliminate the 90 day limit. I disagreed and GOUtah! opposed the bill. Fortunately, it passed despite our objections. I don't think a single arrest nor conviction was ever made under that law. And within a couple of years, the AG's office and police agencies were actually in favor of (or at least neutral) on removing the 90 day limit as unnecessary, unenforceable, and (surprise, surprise) there simply hadn't been any problems with recognizing permits from other States.
That is the direction I err. I'm not perfect and I will make mistakes. But I'm deliberately biased toward being very cautious, and I'm not a one man show. There are at least two of us, and often three or more who study a bill and we come to common consensus before offering our official opinions. There are some bills where we just can't decide and so we don't offer an official opinion.
At the same time, I also recognize that "politics is the art of the possible" and if we let "the perfect be the enemy of the good enough" we will get nothing. Many times, imperfect, but workable solutions are way better than nothing, and far preferable to bad solutions when "something must be done." I will not sell out one segment of gun owners to protect another. But if I can get some good, without getting everything I want, that is a win and I can come back later for the rest. Incrementalism works really well.
I was the primary architect of the deal that allowed churches to ban guns without posting signs on their buildings, while also preserving the default position of guns allowed unless some affirmative action is taken to ban them. That deal not only got us the lowest possible penalty for a violation (infraction without even loss of a permit for first offense), but also put a stake through the heart of the "Safe to Learn; Safe to Worship" citizen petition drive and gave us time to cement into public culture the practice that allowing teachers and parents to be armed was not a problem. I don't like the law very much. But it works. And I don't think we've had a single conviction under it. I know it rubs some the wrong way on pure principle---others because they just hate churches getting any special recognition in law at all. But in real world practice, it has done exactly what it needed to do--which was placate a very powerful political force in Utah who otherwise could have really harmed our RKBA--without materially harming RKBA nor even really affecting any gun owners who have an ounce of respect for others' property.
I was the primary supporter and pusher of Utah's car carry legislation that eliminated the need for a permit to carry a concealed gun and/or loaded handgun in your car. That was a two or three year effort and was an almost perfect win. At the last minute the sponsor retained the existing restriction on carrying loaded long guns in cars without a permit over some legislators' concerns about whether long guns had the same drop safe type features of modern handguns. But we lost nothing and gained huge with that bill.
I worked closely with the sponsor and supported Utah's parking lot preemption that protects the vast majority of Utah's private employees from negative employment action simply for having a firearm legally in their car that happens to be parked in the company parking lot. A few high security employers, and religious employers are exempt; and nothing we can do right now about federal employees. But when coupled with State preemption applied to State and local government employees, the vast majority of us are protected. Again, we lost nothing from where we were before the bill and gained a huge protection for the vast majority of gun owners in the State.
We've worked closely with legislators to make sure that fees for permits match actual cost and to keep those fees set in statute rather than allowing them to be set by unelected bureaucrats so as to prevent any ulterior motives in setting fees. Part of that has been a modest price increase for non-resident permits which has not slowed the non-res applications, but has certainly taken all wind out of the sails of local gun grabbers that Utah residents are somehow "subsidizing" permits for non-residents. Issuance of permits to non-residents has been largely unassailed in the legislature since this bill passed. And Utah's non-res permit remains one of the most affordable in the nation on a "how many States recognize it" basis.
I was the primary architect in finding the least restrictive solution for the then growing problem of other States dropping recognition of Utah's permit. For all the excuses given, I believed and still do believe that the real motivation was loss of revenue to other States and their instructors when some instructors undercut them by encouraging their own residents to get a Utah permit instead of their home State permit. Since adopting my idea of requiring those who live in States that recognize a Utah permit to get their home permit before we issue a non-resident permit, we've not had a single State drop recognition of our permit. Our own residents were affected zero and gained the benefits of not losing additional States in which their permits were valid. Again, non-res applications for our permits don't seem to have slowed, and maybe, just maybe, a few folks have been given a motivation to be involved in improving their own States permits rather than just getting a Utah permit and calling it good.
I helped craft the solution to the supposed problem of non-resident instructors rubber stamping permit applications. Rather than banning non-resident instructors, or requiring all classes to be taught in Utah, the legislature instead took a middle road of requiring instructors to come to Utah to get their instructor training and certification, and to return periodically for refresher training. No loss of rights for Utah residents, minimal impact to non-residents, and we've not heard much from anyone about rubber stamping since then; though I strongly suspect the requirement for non-res applicants to get a home State permit played larger role in this than instructor training.
At the same time, we have and will continue to vigorously oppose any attempt to impose a live fire requirement or otherwise materially increase the cost or hassle of getting a Utah permit. We will not chase the lowest common denominator in an effort to get Nevada back.
I don't just read bills and offer opinions. I have a very credible history of helping craft bills. Some are near perfect bills. Many are imperfect, but practical solutions to problems (real and/or political) and in every case that my ideas have been adopted by the State, we've seen an end to the problem and no slippery slope further loss of rights, no continued battles in that area.
GOUtah! will be supporting this bill as written. USSC supports it. Mitch Vilos, THE recognized expert on Utah gun laws supports it.
If passed, it is possible that some cop, prosecutor, judge, and jury somewhere will really twist this bill to arrest, prosecute, and convict someone for DoC for OCIng a long gun easier than it might have been without this bill. But all three entities/persons listed above clearly believe that is so unlikely that the obvious and clear benefits of removing DoC as a threat to those who OC (or inadvertently expose a CC'd) a holstered firearm that the bill is a huge step in the right direction.
The bill does not change existing statute regarding OCing an unholstered gun (eg a long gun) in the least. It does not criminalize it. To convict someone of disorderly conduct for OCing an "unholstered" long gun would still require proving that the person's conduct violated 76-9-102:
76-9-102. Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
(a) he refuses to comply with the lawful order of the police to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or
(b) intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
(i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;
(ii) makes unreasonable noises in a public place;
(iii) makes unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place; or
(iv) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
(2) "Public place," for the purpose of this section, means any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes but is not limited to streets, highways, and the common areas of schools, hospitals, apartment houses, office buildings, transport facilities, and shops.
(3) Disorderly conduct is a class C misdemeanor if the offense continues after a request by a person to desist. Otherwise it is an infraction.
All this bill does is say that the visible possession of a holstered handgun is NOT a violation of 76-9-102. And as currently worded, it offers the same protection to a "holstered" long gun.
That all said, the best thing we could do is have a few folks who oppose the bill because they think it doesn't go far enough--or because they think the bill criminalizes something that is currently legal. That would minimize opposition to the bill from gun grabbing and fence sitting legislators.
So I'm not opposed to your opposition to the bill. It could serve a very useful purpose if worded correctly. :crown:
Charles