Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 20 of 161 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,518 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Rep. Paul Ray has submitted HB 49 in order to clarify some firearms issues.

In its proposed format, it declares that a firearm whether visible or concealed does not constitute disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, disrupting a school function, or any number of similar ordinances. The list of statues declared not a violation is quite extensive. The U and UVU policies will be voided. BYU may also have to allow carry on campus. It also appears that an open business or store cannot trespass you for carrying since that is the only ordinance they can use to remove you from their property.

It also requires any local authority to cite the statutes that grants them the authority to regulate dangerous weapons and voids any law not in compliance.

It's a shame to see this kind of legislation but it does put oppressive schools and local governments on notice and allows us to carry without worrying if we will be harassed for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,328 Posts
Sam Fidler said:
BYU may also have to allow carry on campus. It also appears that an open business or store cannot trespass you for carrying since that is the only ordinance they can use to remove you from their property.
I read the bill and I don't see those provisions. Which part, exactly, are you referring to?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Sam Fidler said:
It also appears that an open business or store cannot trespass you for carrying since that is the only ordinance they can use to remove you from their property.
I may be reading this wrong. If they tell you to leave and you don't, isn't that trespassing? With or without a gun, you still have to leave when asked
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
GK_ said:
Sam Fidler said:
It also appears that an open business or store cannot trespass you for carrying since that is the only ordinance they can use to remove you from their property.
I may be reading this wrong. If they tell you to leave and you don't, isn't that trespassing? With or without a gun, you still have to leave when asked
They have to articulate how your presence is in violation of 76-6-206, so this bill proposes that just having a firearm cannot be used as a violation of 76-6-206. This is the section they typically used to get you to go away with your firearm:

(2) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if,
(a) the person enters or remains unlawfully on property and:
(iii) is reckless as to whether his presence will cause fear for the safety of another;

They would continue by using this section to say you were "warned":

(b) knowing the person's entry or presence is unlawful, the person enters or remains on property as to which notice against entering is given by:
(i) personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

However:
(4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
(b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property.

With the passage of the proposed bill, the business would not be allowed to use your firearm as a violation of the above sections. If they persist, then they must articulate that either their property was not open to the public at the time you entered, or that your conduct substantially interfered with business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,400 Posts
Too bad it doesn't include 76-10-530 in the list of laws that would no longer apply, and eliminate that "House of Worship" exemption to the 2A.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GlockFan

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
DaKnife said:
Too bad it doesn't include 76-10-530 in the list of laws that would no longer apply, and eliminate that "House of Worship" exemption to the 2A.
I agree that would be nice but the LDS church is too big a political player in this state. They wouldn't want to turn the Church against them. I believe it was most likely specifically left out for that reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
573 Posts
I need to wright Rep. Ray a thank you e mail. I hope this passes, I agree it shouldn't be necessary.....but it is none the less. This would make OC even more appealing then it already is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts
roseblood said:
They have to articulate how your presence is in violation of 76-6-206, so this bill proposes that just having a firearm cannot be used as a violation of 76-6-206. This is the section they typically used to get you to go away with your firearm:

(2) A person is guilty of criminal trespass if,
(a) the person enters or remains unlawfully on property and:
(iii) is reckless as to whether his presence will cause fear for the safety of another;

They would continue by using this section to say you were "warned":

(b) knowing the person's entry or presence is unlawful, the person enters or remains on property as to which notice against entering is given by:
(i) personal communication to the actor by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

However:
(4) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(a) the property was open to the public when the actor entered or remained; and
(b) the actor's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property.

With the passage of the proposed bill, the business would not be allowed to use your firearm as a violation of the above sections. If they persist, then they must articulate that either their property was not open to the public at the time you entered, or that your conduct substantially interfered with business.
First and foremost, hope and pray that this bill does not actually affect the ability of BYU, Westminster, and other private schools to control conduct on their private property. If it does, it will almost certainly fail. Those in the legislature who are most likely to support RKBA, are also least likely to support infringements of private property rights. Beyond that, you might want to go looking for the last time the LDS church lost any political battle where they had a direct stake, especially locally. The LDS Church was savvy enough not to want to get into a direct battle with gun owners on the guns in schools and churches some years back, and so pro-RKBA groups reached a compromise with the LDS Church that provided a legal ban on guns in churches if the church wanted that, while preserving RKBA on public property including government schools. Whatever one may think of the LDS Church either doctrinally, socially, or politically, one has to be very foolish or ignorant to think that a direct political battle with the LDS Church in Utah is a good thing.

Even ignoring that,bear in mind that BYU takes pains to avoid establishing any public right of ways through their property. Every year, for at least 24 hours, BYU police close the campus to all public vehicle traffic. This asserts the right of BYU to close their property at will. I expect Westminster does likewise.

Private institutions like BYU can assert that the campus and buildings are open to employees, students, and guests by invitation only and that said invitation can be revoked at will, for any conduct whatsoever. 76-6-206's paragraphs a, b and c are joined by "ORs" not by "ANDs". So your conduct doesn't have to violate all three, only any one. Basically, all BYU has to do is inform you and ask you to leave....for virtually any reason or even no reason at all. Do you have a student ID? If not, please leave. If you do, you might well expect a visit with the honor code office.

Consider BYU's ability to restrict smoking on their entire property. Or to enforce dress standards that are far more modest than would be required by any government law. Also bear in mind that a "defense to prosecution" does not actually prevent a person from being arrested, charged, and tried. It is simply a recognized defense that can be made in court. I strongly suspect that what does or does not constitute "substantial interference" with property might vary depending on the nature of the property. What might have to be tolerated in the parking lot of SouthTowne or Fashion Place mall is probably different than what I have to tolerate on my front lawn or in my driveway at my home. As a not-for-profit, religious institution of education, BYU will be given the widest latitude possible by the courts to determine what is or is not a disruption of its use of its private property.

BYU might also have appeal to laws beyond simple trespassing if visitors are engaged in unwanted conduct on their private property--whether that conduct is immodest dress, smoking, carrying a gun, two men holding hands in what suggests a homosexual relationship, wearing a T-Shirt with slogans or graphics that the school doesn't like, or anything else. For example, http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_10_240200.htm 76-10-2402 Commercial obstruction.

And all this is just for the unaffiliated visitor. BYU has full authority to enforce employment rules, honor code, and other rules among its employees and students. They can take virtually any action they want to up and including firing and expelling for virtually anything they want to. As a private religious institution BYU can and does rightfully require compliance with policies regarding the most private and intimate conduct including dietary habits, private sexual conduct, and even personal doctrinal/religious beliefs.

Let me end where I started, this bill is not intended to have any effect on the ability of BYU (or other private institutions) to set, maintain, and enforce whatever policies they like. Nor do I see anything in the wording of the bill that will materially affect that ability. Yes, there are one or two specific laws that will no longer apply if someone's only offense is to carry a gun at BYU in contradiction of BYU policy. But I belief that simple trespassing is fully applicable as may be other laws. So too will internal discipline for employees and students remain entirely unaltered by this bill.

The surest, quickest way to kill this bill is to convince people that it would restrict BYU's ability to set and maintain policy. That would bring down direct lobbying from the LDS Church as well as running counter to the general political leanings of most of those who would support the bill. For that reason, you will see the usual gun haters in the legislature trying to make the argument that the bill will affect BYU. If competent legal counsel actually arrives at that conclusion, the way to salvage the bill will be to write a specific exemption for private educational institutions.

If you want BYU to change its policy, take it up with the LDS Church leadership, not with the legislature. To attempt to force the LDS Church to alter its policies regarding possession of firearms is really no less offensive than would be to try to force Jewish or Muslim congregations to welcome pork into their properties.

Charles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts
DaKnife said:
Too bad it doesn't include 76-10-530 in the list of laws that would no longer apply, and eliminate that "House of Worship" exemption to the 2A.
Friends, we all support RKBA. But in our zeal to support RKBA, let's not trample on freedom of religion, nor even the right to control private property, especially when that property is either a man's own home or what a religion considers to be their sacred houses of worship.

No mature adult is forced to patronize any house of worship. If you do not like the manner in which a particular church runs its operations, either appeal to the authorities of that church to change their policy, or peacefully disassociate from the church.

The fact that there is a minimal legal weight behind the policy to ban guns from churches and private homes should be almost entirely irrelevant to decent gun owners. We are fond of quoting Heinlein about an armed society being a polite society. So we do we live it? Are we polite enough,do we give the bare minimum level of respect to others' beliefs and opinions as to not engage in conduct they find offensive on their most private and sacred of property?

Or are we a bunch of boors who care not about others' rights?

If my neighbor, or his church don't want guns in his home or house of worship, I'm not going to take a gun into either one. I see this as no different than not taking pork chops or alcohol or porn into a home a church whose owners would be offended by such things.

One easy way to avoid taking something into a home or church that might offend the owners is to just not take yourself into those locations. If you feel social pressure or other reasons to want to enter such property you either need to comply with their rules, or get mature enough to shrug off such pressures so as not to enter.

No, the legal ban on guns in those homes and churches that give notice is not going away. Indeed, this is exactly what law should do is to protect the rights of private property owners to control access to and use of their property as they see fit. For consistency, it might be nice if every private policy that a homeowner or church might set regarding access to their property carried the same legal force as do private policies on guns. That argues for an expansion of the current law, not its repeal.

Charles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts
sigmanluke said:
DaKnife said:
Too bad it doesn't include 76-10-530 in the list of laws that would no longer apply, and eliminate that "House of Worship" exemption to the 2A.
I agree that would be nice but the LDS church is too big a political player in this state. They wouldn't want to turn the Church against them. I believe it was most likely specifically left out for that reason.
Yes. It is foolish to pick a fight with the LDS Church in Utah.

But even ignoring that, why would it be "nice" to eliminate the legal protection that private property owners have to maintain whatever policy they like in their homes and churches? Do we respect the wishes of our neighbors regarding our use of their homes and churches? Or don't we? If we do, then the current law is entirely a non-issue except in rare cases of unintentional violations of their policies. If we only respect their wishes because of the law, then I think we need to do some serious self examination.

We can hardly expect others to respect our RKBA if we do not respect their freedom of religion or right to control their most private and sacred of property.

Charles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
351 Posts
bagpiper:

For me, it would be "nice" because I have personal knowledge of several people who don't follow the rules, they carry in churches and post offices and anywhere else they go. With one (or more) of these people (based on years of observation) I think it is only a matter of time until he/she/they use a gun(s) in a non-defensive way. I don't like that my wife can't carry to church to protect herself and my children from these type of people.
I know the LDS church doesn't have a problem with guns or using them to protect ourselves, just not on their property. I know their intent is to keep their properties "safe" and used only for religious purposes, but it doesn't work. They do not have security personnel at churches, who do they think is going to protect us while in them?

I don't want all private property owners rights to be inhibited, but I see things that make it hard for me to call a LDS church "private" property. Nearly every LDS church I've been to have signs that say, "visitors welcome". To me, that looks like a place that's open to the public. There is no-one checking who comes and goes and NO security.

I may be alone here, but those are my views.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,400 Posts
+100 Sigman :agree:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,657 Posts
With that said, I am taking my Pork Ribs to a bbq now. @ school

:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts
sigmanluke said:
bagpiper:

For me, it would be "nice" because I have personal knowledge of several people who don't follow the rules, they carry in churches and post offices and anywhere else they go. With one (or more) of these people (based on years of observation) I think it is only a matter of time until he/she/they use a gun(s) in a non-defensive way. I don't like that my wife can't carry to church to protect herself and my children from these type of people.

...
I appreciate your views. And I'm very sympathetic. I'd really like to be able to carry at church as well. In addition to regular sunday worship services, over the last 15+ years I have more often than not held callings that require me to be in and out of the church building quite a bit during the week when I am normally carrying a gun.

But if the State law were repealed tomorrow I'd still be faced with two very large hurdles to carrying a gun into an LDS church building:
1-I know the LDS Church does not want my gun there. I can guess at the real reasons and try to decide that those reasons don't really apply to me. But since no official reason has been given, that would just be a guess on my part. In the end, I"m left with the choice of either respecting the wish of a private religious property owner, or of disregarding those wishes. No one forces me to enter LDS buildings. It is a choice of basic civility and respect, or of not respecting others' rights.

2-As an active LDS I raise my hand some 4 times a year to sustain certain church leaders not only to their religious positions, but also to their positions as the temporal administrators of the church. That outward expression of my faith needs to be followed up with some real action. If I only conform my conduct to their counsel when it suits my previously held views, I'm not really doing a very good job of sustaining them. So for me, it is also a matter of religious duty and faith.

I've heard of more than one LDS Bishop granting an exemption to the gun ban for members of his congregation who have a need or even express significant concern. I know of Bishops who have asked peace officers in the congregation to carry their firearm to church service. So there are existing options for some who feel a need to carry at church.

As for private property, I know the church does reserve the right to exclude anyone for any reason. I have seen them do so in at least one case where a person was officially trespassed from all church property and meetings (other than the sacrament meeting of his own ward). "Visitor's Welcome" and lack of security do not diminish the private and sacred nature of the property, nor the right of the owner to control access as he sees fit.

I'd love to have the church change its policy on guns in church buildings. I expect it would have minimal impact on my security, but would be a major improvement just in personal convenience. I realize there are others who view that equation very differently.

But in any event, from several different angles, I believe the only way to honestly, honorably, and respectfully carry a gun into an LDS House of worship is to somehow convince LDS Church leadership to change the current policy. Asking the legislature to change the law is likely at least a wasted effort and is not the right way to address this particular issue anyway.

All the best.

Charles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts
Sam Fidler said:
The U and UVU policies will be voided.

...

It also requires any local authority to cite the statutes that grants them the authority to regulate dangerous weapons and voids any law not in compliance.
So too will any existing ordinances is local cities, at government run museums, etc.

Requiring ordinances and rules to specify "firearms" makes it easier to track what proposals would affect guns, and then limits the ability to use any future, generic catch-all rule or ordinance as a back door gun control method.

Those are the only intent, and I believe the only effect of the bill.

Sam Fidler said:
BYU may also have to allow carry on campus. It also appears that an open business or store cannot trespass you for carrying since that is the only ordinance they can use to remove you from their property.
As I've explained, I'm certain this change will have zero effect on BYU, Westminster, or other private schools' ability to ban private firearms from their property. Ditto for private businesses.

So long as a private property owner can expel you for smoking, not wearing a coat and tie, wearing your hair too long, talking on your cell phone, or most any other reason, he can expel you for carrying a gun if he doesn't like the gun.

Trespassing is a crime in and of itself. One need not bootstrap from Disorderly Conduct or Disruption of a School Activity in order to get to Trespassing. You do not have to be engaging in dangerous or alarming behavior for a property owner to exclude you from his property.

Under various anti-discrimination and disability laws there are a very small set of reasons for which a business may not deny you service. These include race, sex (generally), disability, age (generally), national origin, religious/political affiliation, and "family status". In some jurisdictions you can add "sexual orientation" and/or "sexual or gender identity." But for every other possible reason, or even no reason at all, business remain free to exclude you from their property at will. Notice that carrying a gun (or any other "dress code" violation") is not on the list of protected categories. Indeed, a business is under no requirement to give you any reason at all to exclude you. If something thinks there is a case to be made that the business is engaging in illegal discrimination against a protected category, he can try to make his case. Simply raising the allegation is often enough to cause serious PR problems in this day and age. But actually making a case stick might well require something like a pattern of behavior.

And religious institutions and employers even get a pass on some of the protected categories, especially under the "ministerial exemption". The Catholics can and do require that their paid clergy are members of the Catholic church. They get to discriminate against women when it comes to employment in the clergy; and get to require that their clergy are not married. The LDS Church and BYU have the same rights and exercise them in similar fashion. You are not likely to ever see a non-LDS, woman, or unmarried man even considered for employment as President of BYU. BYU will fire you if you choose to publish material that the LDS Church deems to be "apostate."

A person who is merely carrying a gun would not be guilty of "Disorderly Conduct" or "Disrupting a School Activity" or any other catch all generic crime. And thus public institutions would have no way to bootstrap the situation from merely disliking guns to actually banning them from public property. The UoU cannot trespass you from public property unless you are actually disrupting a school activity or engaging in some other crime.

But a private property owner can ask you to leave for almost any reason (or no reason) he likes. If you refuse, you are likely to face a trespassing charge.

Charles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,046 Posts
bagpiper said:
But a private property owner can ask you to leave for almost any reason (or no reason) he likes. If you refuse, you are likely to face a trespassing charge.

Charles
Charles, the proposed legislation would void the ability to use a firearm as the reason for "trespassing" an individual if the establishment is a business open to the public, or a public or private institution of higher learning. They can also not use a firearm as the reason for violating the "disruption of school activities".

ETA: the legislation would prohibit the BYU police department from enforcing the university's code of conduct due to a firearm violation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts
roseblood said:
Charles, the proposed legislation would void the ability to use a firearm as the reason for "trespassing" an individual if the establishment is a business open to the public, or a public or private institution of higher learning. They can also not use a firearm as the reason for violating the "disruption of school activities".

ETA: the legislation would prohibit the BYU police department from enforcing the university's code of conduct due to a firearm violation.
In re-reading the bill carefully, I must now conceed that your interpretation is likely correct.

As such, I could not support the bill in its current form. I predict there will be changes to it to address this issue before it is voted on by the legislature.

As much as I dislike and disagree with the gun policies of BYU, the LDS Church, and some private businesses, I simply cannot support infringing their private property rights. I am fre to take my money, my worship, and my educational pursuits elsewhere if I don't like the gun policies of private enterprises. But if I can force them to allow me to engage in conduct they find offensive on their property (IE carrying a gun), then they (and others) can turn around and force me to allow others to engage in conduct on my property that I find offensive.

And I believe it would be impossible to get this bill passed as currently written. It would be heavily opposed by the LDS Church as well as by the entire business community as it represents a significant infringement of private property rights.

Government entities, including the UoU, have no right to limit our RKBA. It is sadly necessary to remind them of this and remove all possible levers they have planned or attempted to use to get around State preemption.

It would be offensive to private property rights as well as to freedom of conscience and religious freedom to attempt to force churches or religious colleges to accept conduct on their property that they find offensive. I would love to peacefully persuade churches, private colleges, and private businesses to change their policies. And given our other anti-discrimination laws that already limit property rights for private businesses, I can support extending similar protections to gun owners/carriers. But I am a huge fan of the ministerial exemption. Freedom of religion must be respected the greatest extent possible.

Charles
 
1 - 20 of 161 Posts
Top