Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just thought I would post a link to the new 2009 bills under development. It would be good to get in on these as they are being developed.

http://www.le.state.ut.us/asp/billsintro/SubResults.asp?Listbox4=03071

Found one bill under development Concealed Firearm Permit Amendments by one Marlynn Newbold.


Representative
Merlynn T. Newbold
District 50
Party R

Her 2007-2008 Committees were as such:
2007-2008 Legislative Assignments: Medicaid Interim Committee (Co Chair); Retirement and Independent Entities Interim Committee; Education Interim Committee; Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee; Administrative Rules Review Committee; Education Subcommittee on Teacher Shortages, Quality, and Compensation; Equalization Task Force

Lots of education work concerns me that she is trying a no open carry bill. Anyone know much about her intentions with this bill? I shot of an email and will update with info when received.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
Well, it went down as follows:

H.B. 195 Concealed Firearm Permit Amendments (Rep. M. Newbold)

Rep. Newbold presented the bill.

MOTION: Rep. Oda moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Page 2, Line 55 :
55 (viii) is qualified to { [ } purchase and /or { ] } possess a firearm pursuant to Section 76-10-503

The motion passed unanimously with Rep. Sumsion absent for the vote.

Spoke in favor of the bill: Mr. Scott Duncan, Commissioner, Utah Department of Public Safety
Didn't see anything in there that was really concerning - just types of firearms carried being changed to type of firearm being carried, starting on line 94.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
It should also be noted that our friend, Sen. Waddoups, is co-sponsoring the bill. That doesn't mean we shouldn't read it just to make sure but it's pretty likely it's safe.

I'm curious, though, why such a minor change is warranted.

Anyone notice this one...
76-10-501. Definitions.
83 (3) "Concealed firearm permit" means a permit issued pursuant to Section 53-5-704
84 that permits, but does not require, concealment of the firearm on the permittee.
This is HB473 by Waddoups and Oda -- YEAY!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
151 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
GeneticsDave said:
Well, it went down as follows:

H.B. 195 Concealed Firearm Permit Amendments (Rep. M. Newbold)

Rep. Newbold presented the bill.

MOTION: Rep. Oda moved to amend the bill as follows:

1. Page 2, Line 55 :
55 (viii) is qualified to { [ } purchase and /or { ] } possess a firearm pursuant to Section 76-10-503

The motion passed unanimously with Rep. Sumsion absent for the vote.

Spoke in favor of the bill: Mr. Scott Duncan, Commissioner, Utah Department of Public Safety
Didn't see anything in there that was really concerning - just types of firearms carried being changed to type of firearm being carried, starting on line 94.
The sighted bill was part of the 2008 session. It appears that there is a new bill under development for the 2009 session that is being drafted for submittal. Good to know that prior bills by R. Newbold have not been adversarial.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
613 Posts
bane said:
It should also be noted that our friend, Sen. Waddoups, is co-sponsoring the bill. That doesn't mean we shouldn't read it just to make sure but it's pretty likely it's safe.

I'm curious, though, why such a minor change is warranted.

Anyone notice this one...
76-10-501. Definitions.
83 (3) "Concealed firearm permit" means a permit issued pursuant to Section 53-5-704
84 that permits, but does not require, concealment of the firearm on the permittee.
This is HB473 by Waddoups and Oda -- YEAY!
I like this one, again. :crown:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
HB 195 is essentially a bill that allows us Canucks the permission to apply and be granted Utah Concealed Weapons Permits.

It died in Senate previously but I can tell you that Scott Duncan didn't say very much that was in favour of the bill and what I just heard on this audio he was telling them everything that he believed was wrong with the bill and one of the committee members asked for a clarification from Mr Duncan if he couldn't just deny the application if he couldn't access the information in the other country, he relented and said yes he could but I could hear in his voice that he didn't like saying that.

From what I have heard from Scott Duncan I am wondering why his name is on the bill as a person supporting it from trying to trash talk the bill.
 
G

·
Every time legislature is in session, it's like having a gun pointed at you. It's nerve-wracking and, even if the person doing it intends no malice towards you, you still feel threatened.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Is anyone else besides me scared stupid about this bill (http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0110.htm)? Notice the frequent use of the word "prevent". I don't like this one little bit the way it's worded. If muncipalities are given the rights to "regulate" and "prevent" the discharge of firearms by the legislature, does this not fall under the umbrella of preemption under the state constitution because the legislature would be giving municipalities the right to regulate firearms with this rhetoric!!! That would mean that each city would be able to pass it's own firearms law to "prevent" a discharge of a firearm. This is Way too vague, and I hope the bill gets shot down if it hasn't already.

The only way to "prevent" the discharge of firearms is to not have them. Holy cow! This is scary stuff guys/gals.

:huh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
XD-Man said:
Is anyone else besides me scared stupid about this bill (http://le.utah.gov/~2008/htmdoc/hbillhtm/hb0110.htm)? Notice the frequent use of the word "prevent". I don't like this one little bit the way it's worded. If muncipalities are given the rights to "regulate" and "prevent" the discharge of firearms by the legislature, does this not fall under the umbrella of preemption under the state constitution because the legislature would be giving municipalities the right to regulate firearms with this rhetoric!!! That would mean that each city would be able to pass it's own firearms law to "prevent" a discharge of a firearm. This is Way too vague, and I hope the bill gets shot down if it hasn't already.

The only way to "prevent" the discharge of firearms is to not have them. Holy cow! This is scary stuff guys/gals.

:huh:
Ok. I'm obviously a noob when it comes to reading those bills. I clicked on a PDF link and saw that this bill was defeated. Sheesh! Talk about a scare aye?
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top