Utah Guns Forum banner
121 - 140 of 161 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
535 Posts
Paul said:
Utah_patriot said:
I was their indeed it passed committee
I got to address the committee it was real nerve racking.

Mr Gunn was their he practically became irritate I kept my cool and gave a statement to the associated press.

The troopers were very cool about me open carrying at the capitol building

Very exciting day
Dude! You are a total stud. Seriously. That's awesome.
:agree: +1000! You rock, Zachary!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
535 Posts
After reading the text of the bill (http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0049s01.htm), I see that it specifically addresses Disorderly Conduct, but don't see where it addresses Disturbing the Peace, Disruption of School Activities, etc. Does anybody else see this same problem, or do you think the changes at the end that require specific citation of authority to cover all that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
Language correction my behind! In case nobody bothered to actually read the substitute bill, it is a completely gutted version! The substitute bill protects us ONLY against Disorderly Conduct and nothing else, so the schools and universities can still arrest for disturbing their activities.

I want to know who paid off or blackmailed Rep. Ray.

I am now
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
brainoncapitalist said:
Great news!! Now to get the rest of the legislature to pass it! :)
Not great news! the substitute bill is all but worthless. It does absolutely nothing to protect us from the Nazis that run the state universities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
brainoncapitalist said:
After reading the text of the bill (http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0049s01.htm), I see that it specifically addresses Disorderly Conduct, but don't see where it addresses Disturbing the Peace, Disruption of School Activities, etc. Does anybody else see this same problem, or do you think the changes at the end that require specific citation of authority to cover all that?
That is because it doesn't cover anything other than Disorderly Conduct. We've been screwed again by a legislator who pretends to support our rights and then sells us out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,180 Posts
rpyne said:
brainoncapitalist said:
After reading the text of the bill (http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0049s01.htm), I see that it specifically addresses Disorderly Conduct, but don't see where it addresses Disturbing the Peace, Disruption of School Activities, etc. Does anybody else see this same problem, or do you think the changes at the end that require specific citation of authority to cover all that?
That is because it doesn't cover anything other than Disorderly Conduct. We've been screwed again by a legislator who pretends to support our rights and then sells us out.
I am looking at this portion and it may be considered to cover this however, it may not depending upon whom may be reading/interpreting it;

The otherwise lawful possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, whether
110 visible or concealed, without additional behavior, does not constitute a hazardous or physically
111 offensive condition or threatening behavior under Subsection (1).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
Any way to find out:

1) Who is responsible for the gutting?

2) The reasoning behind the revision(s)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,738 Posts
Cinhil said:
rpyne said:
brainoncapitalist said:
After reading the text of the bill (http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0049s01.htm), I see that it specifically addresses Disorderly Conduct, but don't see where it addresses Disturbing the Peace, Disruption of School Activities, etc. Does anybody else see this same problem, or do you think the changes at the end that require specific citation of authority to cover all that?
That is because it doesn't cover anything other than Disorderly Conduct. We've been screwed again by a legislator who pretends to support our rights and then sells us out.
I am looking at this portion and it may be considered to cover this however, it may not depending upon whom may be reading/interpreting it;

The otherwise lawful possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, whether
110 visible or concealed, without additional behavior, does not constitute a hazardous or physically
111 offensive condition or threatening behavior under Subsection (1).
But that clause, and the subsection (1) to which it refers, is all part of the Disorderly Conduct statute. So, no, it doesn't apply to anything other than disorderly conduct.

I'm not sure what action I would like to see taken on this bill. On the one hand, I think "take what you can get now, and push for more next time" is a good strategy when it comes to legislatively extending rights guarantees. "My way or the highway" thinking tends to result in no -- or negative -- progress, while incrementalism works.

However, in this case, after disorderly conduct is addressed, the next step would have to be another bill that's entirely about guns at universities, because it would be entirely about the question of whether visible guns interfere with education. That may be a much harder bill to find support for. It may be that the best strategy for shutting down the university anti-OC campaign is to kill this bill and try again later. On the other hand, cities have also been known to use Disorderly Conduct against OCers, so for everywhere but school campuses passage of the weakened bill is still a good thing.

Tough call.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts
Amendments are being prepared to address the deficiencies in the current language. But remember, with only 45 days in a session, time works against these kind of good bills. So it is important to get it out of committee and moving. Even as currently written, the bill is not "bad" in that it does no harm and does some good. It simply doesn't do as much good as we'd like to see. But having gotten a 10-3 approval on the concept, expanding it to including other "catch-all" laws should not be a huge problem.

Now, that all said, KSL has a story in this bill that is worth a read and and a few supporting comments.

Charles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
bagpiper said:
Now, that all said, KSL has a story in this bill that is worth a read and and a few supporting comments.

Charles
I find it interesting that it uses the innocent Taylorsville incident followed by the guy who packed his AR around the University Mall. I feel like that mall incident can hurt the cause now more than ever. Seems like a lot of people are going to see that as a reason not to pass this law. I'll open carry on occasion and I'm all for those who want to, but even I would have been suspicious of him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
The Taylorsville incident is Utah_Patriot here on the forums. He's a guy that's WAY too tall. Just sayin... (I think his height is compensating).

What worries me most is what's NOT in the bill and what it means. The University now can say "Well, there was a bill that said open carry could NOT be used against you, but they specifically removed that language for Universities. That means we can smack you with it because the legislature obviously does not agree with you."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,377 Posts
B52U said:
The ignorant are flooding the KSL story comments with misinformation. Sad state of affairs.
The first page didn't seem to bad. Some misinfo, but people were correcting them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
I am for one that does not like the new language either....Please contact members of the state House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee NOW and respectfully request their support for HB 49 the ORIGINAL. You can contact committee members by calling the House line at (801) 538-1029, and by sending an e-mail to the addresses provided below:

Representative Curtis Oda(R-14), Chairman
[email protected]

Representative Richard A. Greenwood (R-12), Vice Chairman
[email protected]

Representative Patrice M. Arent (D-36)
[email protected]

Representative David G. Butterfield (R-4)
[email protected]h.gov

Representative Craig A. Frank (R-57)
[email protected]

Representative Keith Grover (R-61)
[email protected]

Representative Gregory H. Hughes (R-51)
[email protected]

Representative Don L. Ipson (R-75)
[email protected]

Representative David Litvack (D-26)
[email protected]

Representative Daniel McCay (R-52)
[email protected]

Representative Lee B. Perry (R-2)
[email protected]

Representative Jennifer M. Seelig (D-23)
[email protected]

Representative Bill Wright (R-68)
[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
535 Posts
I sent them a fairly strongly worded email about it last night:

Hello again. I just saw that you passed HB 49 so that it can go to the full house for a vote, but after reading the text of the substitute bill, I am extremely irate. The bill was completely gutted! It removed clarifying language for almost all of the other 'catch-all' laws such as Disruption of School Activities that bureaucrats and Opinion Enforcement Officers love to use to violate my unalienable right to lawfully keep and bear arms. If I am wrong in my interpretation of the bill, I apologize, but I have read it a few times now and compared it with the original and it appears that you did indeed bow down to the wishes of the bureaucrats. I am VERY disappointed in this committee. Maybe we need some new legislators with some backbone.
This is a response I got from Curtis Oda:

We had to go strictly to Disorderly Conduct for now. This bill does two things. First, it helps clarify what Disorderly Conduct is. Second, that clarification is inserted into the sections that states that all public subsectors of the state are subject to the statewide preemption and cannot charge for disorderly for the mere presence of a firearm. The original bill went into areas that would cause a lot of opposition. These are best left for the future to get it right. The one area we cannot ever go into is the criminal trespass section.

This is called incrementalism. We take what we can get and work on others later.

I've worked very hard to get us to where we are. Prior to 2006, we were always on the defense, trying to stop bad anti-gun bills. We have been able to take back a bunch over the past 5 years and this year again, we have several bills being presented. But we cannot get it all at once!

Lastly, if you think you can do better, then run for office! I suggest you at least get involved with the Utah Shooting Sports Council. They have been the lobbying strength in Utah.

Curt
PS----- Do not send these to Arent, Litvack or Seelig. They are anti-gun and we don't want to tip them off on strategy or show any disruption amongst our side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
brainoncapitalist said:
I sent them a fairly strongly worded email about it last night:

Hello again. I just saw that you passed HB 49 so that it can go to the full house for a vote, but after reading the text of the substitute bill, I am extremely irate. The bill was completely gutted! It removed clarifying language for almost all of the other 'catch-all' laws such as Disruption of School Activities that bureaucrats and Opinion Enforcement Officers love to use to violate my unalienable right to lawfully keep and bear arms. If I am wrong in my interpretation of the bill, I apologize, but I have read it a few times now and compared it with the original and it appears that you did indeed bow down to the wishes of the bureaucrats. I am VERY disappointed in this committee. Maybe we need some new legislators with some backbone.
This is a response I got from Curtis Oda:

We had to go strictly to Disorderly Conduct for now. This bill does two things. First, it helps clarify what Disorderly Conduct is. Second, that clarification is inserted into the sections that states that all public subsectors of the state are subject to the statewide preemption and cannot charge for disorderly for the mere presence of a firearm. The original bill went into areas that would cause a lot of opposition. These are best left for the future to get it right. The one area we cannot ever go into is the criminal trespass section.

This is called incrementalism. We take what we can get and work on others later.

I've worked very hard to get us to where we are. Prior to 2006, we were always on the defense, trying to stop bad anti-gun bills. We have been able to take back a bunch over the past 5 years and this year again, we have several bills being presented. But we cannot get it all at once!

Lastly, if you think you can do better, then run for office! I suggest you at least get involved with the Utah Shooting Sports Council. They have been the lobbying strength in Utah.

Curt
PS----- Do not send these to Arent, Litvack or Seelig. They are anti-gun and we don't want to tip them off on strategy or show any disruption amongst our side.
You got it good, you have a Representative that will reply in a timely manor - Curt is on our side and is working hard on this with many others. Thanks for doing your part and reaching out to your Representative.
 
121 - 140 of 161 Posts
Top