Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This just in I’m scheduled to be on NRA Cam & Company regarding this issue tonight at 9:40pm MST http://www.nranews.com/nranews.aspx

The language for University of Utah’s Gun Ban Bill was just released today.
SB251 was written by Sen. Greg Bell. It takes an otherwise safe campus and turns sections into de-facto Gun-Free Zones (Faculty Offices and Dorms are affected)

While being interviewed by a local reporter I mention the following points to remember.

We feel that SB251 is unnecessary, ill conceived and ideological in its very premise. It is a feel good measure at best and purely ideological to be certain.

There are already ample safeguards for those licensed to carry firearm discretely in place. The backgrounds of CCW holders are the most scrutinized in the state. Permits holders are the only people in the State who are subjected to daily checks to assure their criminal free status.

We have seen patterns of abuse by permit holders in the last 12 years.

This would make the only state entity that could, by rule, ban firearms without the assurance of compliance by those bent on violence. No metal detectors are required to be installed outside faculty offices. As such it only disarms those who are inclined to obey these laws and rules.

The University and Board of Regents have stated that if the Bill passes they will drop the Federal lawsuit. They must think we are as naive as they are with their personal safety.

First why on earth would they give up potential ability to Ban guns anywhere and everywhere if they felt they had a chance of winning? Especially to replace it with what they term as a pittance of a gun rule.

Second, do they really expect us to believe that by agreeing to drop the federal lawsuit that it ties the hands of future University presidents and Members of the Board or Regents?

To those not following the University’s Federal Claim it holds that it is an infringement of a person’s right of Free Speech if we allow CCW on campus.
They hold that if a person feels that another person “might” be carrying a concealed weapon, then that person will be afraid to speak against them in class, thus it would “have a chilling effect on Free Speech”

I have asked that an NRA alert go out calling on people concerned to call their Senators and declare that the bill is DOA at Senate Rules.

Utah Senate Switchboard 801-538-1035
Members of Senate Rules:
Sen. John W. Hickman, Chair
Sen. Gregory S. Bell
Sen. D. Chris Buttars
Sen. Gene Davis
Sen. Peter C. Knudson
Sen. Darin G. Peterson
Sen. Ed Mayne (Eddie is a great pro-gun Democrat) No need to call him.

Sincerely,
W. Clark Aposhian
Chairman;
Utah BCI CCW Review Board (BCI)
Utah Shooting Sports Council (USSC)
Utah Self-Defense Instructor’s Network. (US-DIN)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
I got a reply from Sen. Bell, who sponsored the bill.

Here is his reply:
Thanks for writing me about SB 251, which is the result of a working group of Senators (Waddoups, Knudsen, Bell, Madsen, and Mayne), Representatives (Oda, Hunsaker, Wimmer) and, for the Utah System of Higher Education (USHE), Associate Commissioner Dave Buhler, President Ann Milner of Weber State University, and Kim Wirthlin, Vice President of the University of Utah.

Recently, the Utah Supreme Court ruled against the U of U and in favor the State Legislature’s position that the Legislature alone could determine gun policy for Utah’s public colleges and universities. However, the U of U’s claims in its lawsuit in Federal court are still outstanding, to the effect that the U has a right to control its learning environment as a part of academic freedom and other claims. The Working Group was convened to resolve the outstanding Federal claims and the USHE’s expressed desire to have some accommodation of gun policy.

USHE sought to ban weapons from classrooms and academic areas, labs, athletic venues, student union areas, faculty and staff offices, and residence halls. With one exception, the legislators could not accept these requests.

The agreement between the working group members is as follows (and is reflected in SB 251):

1. The USHE and the U of U expressly acknowledge that only the Legislature may determine gun policy on the campuses of Utah’s public colleges and universities.

2. The U of U will dismiss its federal claims against the Legislature.

3. A concealed weapons permit holder may carry a legally permitted weapon anywhere on a campus except specific faculty and staff offices where a notice is posted. Faculty/staff members will have the choice of an office a) in which legally carried weapons are permitted, or b) which is posted with a sign indicating no weapons are allowed inside the office. Convenient safe storage for weapons must be provided near posted offices.

4. Dorm residents will be allowed to request a roommate(s) who does not carry a concealed weapon, much like they can indicate a preference for a roommate who does not smoke.

Sincerely,
Senator Gregory S. Bell
Utah State Senate, District 22
This sounds to me like it is not quite as sweeping a ban as I thought at first. It sounds like it is up to individual professors as to whether or not to ban guns in their own offices ... not the university. Also for dorms, it sounds like it is up to individual students to ask for a roommate who does not have a gun.

I've got to go read the bill in detail now...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
OK, I've read through text of S.B. 251. There are two things in particular that it would add to the law.

  • It will add a paragraph to U.C.A. 53B-3-103, part 2.a:
    (iii) authorize a higher education institution to make a rule that allows a resident of a dormitory located at the institution to have only roommates who are not licensed to carry a concealed firearm under Section 53-5-704 or 53-5-705.
    The wording of this one has me concerned. It sounds like a resident of the dorms can request to be roommates with someone who doesn't have a CFW. However, I'm worried that the wording could be twisted by the U to mean that all residents can, by rule, be required to room with people who don't have a CFP. I do not trust the U not to try a stunt like that, given the specious arguments they've used in court for several years now.

    I would hope that the wording could be made clearer so as to prevent just that bit of sophistry that the U might try. If they would add something about this requiring a written request by the resident to invoke the rule, then I'd feel better about it.
    [/*]
  • It will add a paragraph to U.C.A. 76-10-505.5, section 4.a:
    (4) (a) Acknowledging that the Legislature has the authority to regulate, by law, firearms at institutions of higher education and as an exception to Subsection (3)(a), as it pertains to the nonapplication of this section to a person authorized to carry a concealed firearm under Section 53-5-704 or 53-5-705, an institution of higher education may enact a rule prohibiting a person authorized to carry a concealed firearm under Section 53-5-704 or 53-5-705 from carrying a concealed firearm into the office of a faculty or staff member:
    (i) who has requested of the institution, in writing, the prohibition of concealed firearms in the individual's office; and
    (ii) has had a sign posted of the prohibition outside of the individual's office which is reasonably likely to come to the attention of persons entering the office.
    (b) The rule shall include a provision requiring that a reasonably proximate secure storage facility be made available outside of an office referred to in Subsection (4)(a) where a person authorized to carry a concealed firearm shall store the firearm prior to entering the office.
    This certainly cannot be construed as a sweeping ban of CCW in all faculty offices. It allows individual professors to make a written request to the university to have their own offices be off-limits, plus they have to post. This one doesn't worry me much. If an individual professor chooses to have his or her office be a defense-free zone, that's his or her lookout.[/*]

That's my analysis, anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
I'm concerned about the whole thing regardless of wording. These hubristic ********* won't stop until they have their full bans restored and officially sanctioned by the state legislature.

This is only the begining.

A few years back, when churches were given special treatment for banning guns, I've been vocal saying it's a bad idea to give one group special treatment because every other anti-gun group will want special treatment.

This foolishness needs to be stopped cold. I'd also like a repeal of the special treatment for churches law.

Either we have God-given natural rights or we don't. Which is it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
AMEN! AMEN!! AMEN!! BlackPuma I agree wholeheartedly with your comments!! :D
Hopefully this insidious non-compromise bill will be stopped cold! I also agree wholeheartedly with repealing the Church gun ban. Besides the fact that that law is bad, it was created by a church & as far as I am concerned that is a violation of the church & state clause of the federal constitution.

I hate the idea of not being able to provide for my safety anywhere. Victim disarmament zones (which is what the church law creates) are evil. besides that, the only churches which do restrict ccw also allow BSA activities & support. Don't the boy Scouts use knives, hatchets and other "weapons" which are just as deadly as a gun? My scout troop did, especially when gathering for camp outs and such. This law becomes hypocritical in that it only discriminates against the lawful gun owner and allows other weapons, seemingly with impunity.

Anyways, I hope this law is repealed--the sooner, the better! :evil: :oops:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
At 4 pm today the committee overseeing SB251 is meeting and allowing public comment. If you can't be there write an email or call--you have about a half an hour to do so. I would have thought someone would have said something already, but with last nights events at Trolley Square, I can see why we may have been distracted.. Contact the committee & let them know you want a no vote--lets kill it in committee!

Members are:

Sen. Valentine
Sen Bell
Sen. Hillyard
Se. Grienar
Sen Madsen
Sen. McCoy
Sen. Romero

Good luck! We need this bill defeated as it is bad!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,552 Posts
I got Clark's email from his CCW Utah Yahoo! group and was able to get emails to ALL of those Senators listed.

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
SB251 went of of committee with favorable dispostion. This is bad! :oops: :evil: :twisted:
Here is the way the votes went:

Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee
2/13/2007 4:00:00 PM - Rm W130
Minutes

Senate Comm - Favorable Recommendation
SB0251 - Higher Education - Concealed Firearms Restrictions

Yeas - 3
Bell, G.
McCoy, S.
Romero, R.
Nays - 2
Hillyard, L.
Madsen, M.
Absent - 2
Greiner, J.
Valentine, J.

Personally I see absolutely no reason for absent votes other than death, severe injury or hospitalization. This bodes evil for us & we must now work on every member of the senate or this illicit and anti-constitutional bill will get passed. All this would do is defeat the legitimate gains we the people have had over the past few years and puts us on square one. Should this bill pass it will send the message that if you are the University of Utah you can thwart, abuse or otherwise obstruct the law & thumb your nose at the legislature until you get your way. Tell everyone you know to work hard to defeat this evil before the U of U gets their crowbar so far in the door that their will be no freedoms on campus for students, faculty, staff or visitors!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Just how is the U going to enforce the provision that allows a student to choose whether they have a roommate with a CFP? The only way to do this is to force all students with a CFP to make it known to the university that they possess a a CFP. This gives them a privilege that no one else has, access to the names of people who hold CFPs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
Excellent news! S.B. 251 was gutted.

There is a substitute bill now that I'm much happier about: Second Substitute S.B. 251

This adds the following to U.C.A. 53B-3-10:
2(a)(ii) acknowledging that the Legislature has the authority to regulate, by law, firearms at
higher education institutions:
...
(B) authorize a higher education institution to make a rule that allows a resident of a
dormitory located at the institution to request only roommates who are not licensed to carry a
concealed firearm under Section 53-5-704 or 53-5-705 .
This is far better than the original bill.

Thanks to all who wrote to their legislators!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
(B) authorize a higher education institution to make a rule that allows a resident of a
40 dormitory located at the institution to request only roommates who are not licensed to carry a
41 concealed firearm under Section 53-5-704 or 53-5-705 .
Interesting? So they can only request that they not have a roommate that is licensed to carry a concealed firearm. So it would not be against the rules if the roommate had a firearm and was not licensed to carry it concealed or just open carried. Sounds like a good loophole.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,552 Posts
Sounds like discrimination to me.

Like saying you only want a roomate who espouses a certain religion, or is white or black, etc.

That bill is still a slippery slope.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top