Agreed.DaKnife said:If we are proactive and politely vocal perhaps this time we can finally get it passed. Improving Utah's laws even more and sinking our Brady ranking even closer to a negative score. That said even though it's legal, perhaps it isn't the wisest time to go packing a scary black gun around in public. If you want to OC to a public meeting do so with a sidearm rather than a long gun.
If there is another frozen rally like last year at the Capitol, then and there go ahead and carry your rifle. Normally I'm one who says OC is legal, do it. But we lost a couple battles last year due to people being just obnoxious enough in their carry to cost us support. I supported the guy at JC Penny, but he might have been better waiting until after the bill was passed to make his statement.
:agree:bagpiper said:Folks, neither bill is even fully drafted yet (near as I can tell). And I certainly haven't seen any language yet. The devil will be in the details and all of that.
But let us seriously consider on a couple things.
First of all, right now, a holstered but OC'd handgun is legally no better defined relative to Disorderly Conduct that a rifle or shotgun carried in hand, or a combat sling. Now, I do not want to see the OC'd long gun expressly criminalized. That would be a step backward. But if we can get holstered handguns expressly protected, while leaving long guns in roughly the same state they are now, that would be progress.
Secondly, notice who it is that is opposing our RKBA: The League of Cities and Towns and the Police Chiefs Association. Want to know who funds those two groups? That's right. You and I do via local (city property) taxes and sales taxes. So in addition to our work with legislators on RKBA, we need to start making our mayors and city council members aware that we object to them providing funding to these organizations that turn around and use the funding to attack our interests. (And I suspect that most here would take issue with a lot of positions advocated by the League of City and Towns beyond just RKBA; they are basically an urban planning organization that believes in heavy government regulation of most every aspect of your yard, home, etc, favor high density over rural or suburban living, and so on.)
Charles
As currently written, I believe this bill is a huge improvement to the DoC law and provides significant protections to the law abiding gun owner who either chooses to OC or whose gun unintentionally becomes exposed.David Nelson said:The published bill is now available online (http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/HB0276.html).
It sounds like a solution looking for a problem. What issues do we have with OCing handguns?bagpiper said:As currently written, I believe this bill is a huge improvement to the DoC law and provides significant protections to the law abiding gun owner who either chooses to OC or whose gun unintentionally becomes exposed.
During my now-infamous run-in with a senior Salt Lake City Corp. Police Department officer for my possession of an unconcealed firearm in 2007 at the Utah Pride Festival, he stated a few times that "people here might become scared or concerned for their safety" if I continued to open carry. While I talked him down logically from that threat of a disorderly-conduct violation, it was before the Lund v. Salt Lake City Corp., No. 2:07-cv-0226BSJ (D. Utah 2008) opinion (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/carry/ ... -12-04.pdf) which included the brilliant dicta that we all know and love. But, we also must remember that the dicta was just that: remarks made by the judge outside the confines of the merits of the case, not a governing order. Dicta is only a way for a judge to speak freely and make examples without jeopardizing the opinion's precedential logic. By itself, dicta isn't precedence. While it can be introduced as a good example of reason in future related cases, it remains just a remark and not binding, legally.UtahJarhead said:...What issues do we have with OCing handguns...?
No, once this gets passed the next time a 2A rally is held at the Capitol the police will be ready to haul away anyone with a rife that is not encased as it could be interpreted to be disorderly conduct. By not mentioning long guns and putting specific requirements to the how of carrying a gun in order to not be subject to DC charges it does in fact effectively outlaw the carry of long guns. Right now the criteria while vague is clear, it's the reasonable man argument. So any judge familiar with safe handling of firearms will recognize a slung weapon as safely carried and not threatening. By removing the vaguenous we actually hurt the current situation. Specificity is not always a good thing.bagpiper said:As currently written, I believe this bill is a huge improvement to the DoC law and provides significant protections to the law abiding gun owner who either chooses to OC or whose gun unintentionally becomes exposed.David Nelson said:The published bill is now available online (http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/HB0276.html).
With respect to DaKife, this bill does nothing to create any new crimes. It does not create any new restrictions.
What it does is carve out a specific exception to the DoC law for guns that are carried either "holstered or encased."
That it does not mention slung long guns does not create a new ban on OCing such firearms. Rather, it leaves them in the current, somewhat ambiguous state.
In other words, were this bill to pass, we'd gain ground in protecting the legal ability to OC a holstered or encased gun while losing no ground at all on slung guns. That would be a win. And after not getting the whole pie for the last 4 years, I think it is time to go after 90% of the pie that we can probably get.
Charles
Those are some great images of available rifle holsters. I especially like the AR-15 scabbard. So, it is possible to OC rifles while still complying with the expectations of the bill.AKM said:...I've attached some pics of ways to carry a long gun and be exempt from DoC under this bill....
You got it.legalheat said:Thanks to UtahJarhead for pointing me to this discussion. On our reading, UT 276 is clearly a step in the wrong direction (a big one). I just put a blog post up regarding our opinion and we're encouraging people to contact reps in opposition. I know a lot of people have supported this bill and that's fine, I can't. Our thoughts are here: http://mylegalheat.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/ut-hb-0276-and-the-overton-window/
I respectfully and strongly disagree. You and "legalheat" are engaging in flawed legal analysis.DaKnife said:No, once this gets passed the next time a 2A rally is held at the Capitol the police will be ready to haul away anyone with a rife that is not encased as it could be interpreted to be disorderly conduct. By not mentioning long guns and putting specific requirements to the how of carrying a gun in order to not be subject to DC charges it does in fact effectively outlaw the carry of long guns. Right now the criteria while vague is clear, it's the reasonable man argument. So any judge familiar with safe handling of firearms will recognize a slung weapon as safely carried and not threatening. By removing the vaguenous we actually hurt the current situation. Specificity is not always a good thing.
We know from past experience that the police will try to twist this law however they can in order to arrest those who's actions they disagree with. This does not help and actually hurts based on current case law and understanding that most Utah LEO's seem to have these days.
Eliminate the holster/cased requirement and the language is good, or add language to include slung long guns.
Until such changes are made this is not a step forward, it's a subtle step backwards.
No more so than it is today.UtahJarhead said:In addition, the removal of a firearm from a holster or the transferring of a firearm from one vehicle to another during a private sale would be grounds for disorderly conduct. Basically, any firearm not holstered or encased puts the possessor in legal jeopardy.
Charles, was this an attempt to get personal? I don't know you and you may very well be a 2A rockstar (Alan Gura using a UCC pseudonym?) but I'd be glad to publicly disclose financial contributions to 2A groups and discuss how many 2A issues I've litigated if you'd like to do the same. Why try to take it to a personal level because someone disagrees with you? I'm trying to remember if I've ever vocally opposed another legislative issue here in Utah (honestly don't recall if I have). However, I'd imagine alleging I've opposed "virtually every bill ever proposed" is a bit of an overstatement, but who am I to judge.bagpiper said:I respectfully and strongly disagree. You and "legalheat" are engaging in flawed legal analysis.
Please review our very successful history of incrementalism and rethink your views on this bill. And consider that while legalheat and his ilk have opposed virtually every bill ever proposed, they've done nothing to actually protect, much less advance RKBA the last several years.
Charles
Don't get me wrong, I'm VERY glad Rep. Ray is "ok" with me carrying a holstered gun (by "ok" I'm assuming he means not arrested and criminally prosecuted). However, his intent is CLEARLY and undeniably to criminalize the act of openly carrying an uncased/unholstered firearm. He seeks to criminalize an act that is currently legal, and this is the bill's sponsor. Now, it may make you uncomfortable to face the reality that you are supporting something that runs contrary to your beliefs, but I can't help you there."So if someone is carrying a gun around in their hand they can be cited," he said. "This bill really clarifies things and gives them an outline to go by of in this situation you can write a ticket and in this situation you can't."
The same goes for people who openly display guns on their body. The man in JC Penney last year could have been charged with disorderly conduct, he said.
"If they strap a rifle onto their back and walk into JC Penney, you can be cited for disorderly, which you ought to be," Ray said. "But if you have your handgun holstered then you are ok."