Utah Guns Forum banner

Salt Lake County Ordinance

3K views 12 replies 7 participants last post by  UtahJarhead 
#1 ·
There are a couple of places that my family and I frequent that have signs with Salt Lake County Park Regulations stating, among other things, "No Archery/No Firearms".

Now there's been plenty of discussion about "no gun" signs that have no legal force, but this one caught my eye because at the bottom it listed "SL County Ordinance - Title 13 Section 13.04 100 & 300". I thought perhaps there was a county ordinance backing up this sign (which would be contrary to state law, right?) so I checked it out on this site. 100 deals with animals, and 300 does not exist.

I'm guessing 13.04.300 was regarding firearms but has since been removed due to the Utah Code Uniform Firearm Law, but the signs just haven't been removed/altered.

If thats the case, then there shouldn't be any issue OCing in such areas, right? Is it worthwhile to find the proper people to write in order to get those signs changed?
 
#2 ·
"Is it worthwhile to find the proper people to write in order to get those signs changed?" Yes.

It may save someone from being hassled and/or detained. It is a good thing for citizens to become involved in government.
 
#4 ·
I just wanted to point out that the SL County ordinance numbers changed a number of years ago and there are still signs that reference the old numbering system.

To start, I would either email your council rep, the Mayor, the county attorney or just go to one of the county meetings and express your concern during the comment period (that way your comments get on the public record). If you choose to go to a meeting, let me know I'd be happy to go with you.
 
#5 ·
So I did a little more research and it looks like they did remove the firearm ordinances that were previously on the books. So we just need to get them a list of all parks and places with outdated/illegal signs.

http://library5.municode.com/default-te ... n=whatsnew
Title 10 Article VIII. Weapons

Chapter 10.64 RESERVED*

__________
*Editor's note: Ord. No. 1661, § II, adopted January 5, 2010, amended the Code by repealing former Ch. 10.64 in its entirety. Former Ch. 10.64 pertained to firearms and weapons, and derived from the prior code, §§ 16-4-1--16-4-11, and Ord. 1473 of 2001.
 
#6 ·
kccraft said:
Thats what I was thinking. Any idea who the person to write to would be?
My bro-in-law sits in the Taylorsville City planning meetings. I'll bring this up to him and maybe he knows the right people.

Also, Kevin - You need to come back to work. Mark's in Aussie and I don't have anyone to talk guns with.
 
#7 ·
Salt Lake County is broke, busted, and out of money (but the county commissioners still voted themselves a six figure pay raise). The county is so broke that they are trying to force some of their parks off onto the cities in order to avoid paying maintenance costs. I don't see them budgeting money to replace a bunch of signs any time soon.
 
#8 ·
14freedom said:
Also, Kevin - You need to come back to work. Mark's in Aussie and I don't have anyone to talk guns with.
Haha, that does sound dreadful. You'll have to wait till monday though... no way I'm coming in before then! :lol2:
 
#9 ·
This MAY lead to legal issues, I don't know, but if they can't afford to replace the signs, then they probably can't afford to launch an investigation into who is putting waterproof tape overtop of the "No firearms" parts of the signs. It may well be considered vandalism, however so I do not condone it. It's easily removable if they decide to remove it and it presents a short-term solution until the signs are replaced. That is if they decide not to keep the impromptu sign repairs in place!
 
#10 ·
UtahJarhead said:
This MAY lead to legal issues, I don't know, but if they can't afford to replace the signs, then they probably can't afford to launch an investigation into who is putting waterproof tape overtop of the "No firearms" parts of the signs. It may well be considered vandalism, however so I do not condone it. It's easily removable if they decide to remove it and it presents a short-term solution until the signs are replaced. That is if they decide not to keep the impromptu sign repairs in place!
Haha, I was thinking the same thing. Hey, I'd be saving the county money by fixing it for them, right? It's almost my civic duty to do so, lol.
 
#11 ·
kccraft said:
Haha, I was thinking the same thing. Hey, I'd be saving the county money by fixing it for them, right? It's almost my civic duty to do so, lol.
I've wanted to for a long time here in Ogden, but they'll probably cite for it.
 
#12 ·
As a previous posted stated, they have no money to deal with something that will likely never be an issue. IMHO, let it be. Anyone who carries should already know the law about carrying in a public park. As for someone being harassed, maybe one in a million. LEO's do not enforce signs posted in a park, they enforce the laws on the books. With all that said, maybe a LEO might want to make an issue of it but we all know it would not hold water. I would much rather see them not cut funding to a service that people really need just to change some outdated signs.

I agree then need to be changed but lets wait until the economy is better. They have done no harm thus far....
 
#13 ·
Snaggle said:
As a previous posted stated, they have no money to deal with something that will likely never be an issue. IMHO, let it be. Anyone who carries should already know the law about carrying in a public park. As for someone being harassed, maybe one in a million. LEO's do not enforce signs posted in a park, they enforce the laws on the books. With all that said, maybe a LEO might want to make an issue of it but we all know it would not hold water. I would much rather see them not cut funding to a service that people really need just to change some outdated signs.

I agree then need to be changed but lets wait until the economy is better. They have done no harm thus far....
I completely 100% disagree with this stance.

First, it's illegal for them to have the signs up.

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_10_050000.htm
76-10-500. Uniform law.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state. Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be:
(a) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in his possession or lawfully under his control; or
(b) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(2) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms.
Those signs are an attempt at enacting illegal ordinances/rules. It is 100% illegal for us to violate any firearms ordinances. We will get arrested, fined, cuffed, or even be labeled a felon for violating them. You want to let the government off no problem? Oh hecks no! At the least we can fine them the time and money it takes to fix those signs and fine them the pain of me riding them until they fix that kind of crap. We can't violate the laws, neither can they.

Second, any person that is legally trying to Open Carry there due to lack of a CFP will believe it's illegal to do so. Everybody has to start their carrying habit somewhere. If they haven't had their CFP, there's a very good chance they don't know the laws fully, yet. They can legally carry in ANY public park in Utah so far as I can tell. They shouldn't be intimidated into not carrying. It's their RIGHT to do so and it's NOT the state's right to restrict that in that manner (currently).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top