HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

We will try to post current legislative bills that relate to Gun Control issues in this Forum. This includes bills in the Utah Legislature and U.S. Congress.

HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby AKM » Thu 23 Jan 2014 7:50 pm

Does anyone know the reason for this bill? It changes the definition of a Dangerous Weapon to exclude archery equipment being used to hunt or for recreation.

http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/HB0268.html
User avatar
AKM
Novice
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu 24 Jan 2013 1:02 am
Location: Brigham City

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby David Nelson » Thu 23 Jan 2014 8:03 pm

AKM wrote:Does anyone know the reason for this bill? It changes the definition of a Dangerous Weapon to exclude archery equipment being used to hunt or for recreation....

I support the idea that a weapon is dangerous because of the user's intent, not because of a law deeming it so. But, I realize that firearms will probably never enjoy the same redefinition that the sponsor wants to give to archery equipment, thus creating an even more strident demonization of firearms when they remain the only weapons listed as "dangerous."
David Nelson
Utah

Is it more treasonous to violate the Constitution or to expose the violation?
David Nelson
Expert Marksman
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004 1:47 am

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby bagpiper » Fri 24 Jan 2014 6:46 am

I do not know the intent, but we need to check on the possible ramifications. On the one hand, there are likely obvious advantages to archery equipment not being classified as a dangerous weapon. OTOH, and at the same time, does this provide enough protections against excessive local regulation? Or do we want to get archery equipment also included under State Preemption?

It would be great if cities were not able to arbitrarily ban backyard archery practice, for example? Nor criminalize carrying a slung bow (all compound bows given the difficulty of unstringing in the field) on or in a motor vehicle.

Maybe removing archery equipment from the list of dangerous weapons does that. I just don't know.

Charles
bagpiper
Sniper
 
Posts: 3107
Joined: Tue 09 Nov 2010 8:31 pm

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby AKM » Fri 24 Jan 2014 11:10 am

bagpiper wrote:...does this provide enough protections against excessive local regulation? Or do we want to get archery equipment also included under State Preemption?...


I believe we would benefit greatly by including all items of self preservation, such as knives, mace, tazers, bow n arrows, clubs, etc..., to the State Preemption. We are blessed to have preemption for firearms, but unfortunately some municipalities and state entities (USOE, U of U) twist state firearm laws as much as they can to in force their views and opinions. It would be great if a penalty were added to state preemption to keep this from happening. I remember reading somewhere that Florida has a penalty of thousands of dollars for a government official that makes or enforces a rule that is contrary to state firearm laws.


Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk
User avatar
AKM
Novice
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu 24 Jan 2013 1:02 am
Location: Brigham City

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby Liberty Nut » Sun 26 Jan 2014 10:38 pm

bagpiper wrote:I do not know the intent, but we need to check on the possible ramifications. On the one hand, there are likely obvious advantages to archery equipment not being classified as a dangerous weapon. OTOH, and at the same time, does this provide enough protections against excessive local regulation? Or do we want to get archery equipment also included under State Preemption?

It would be great if cities were not able to arbitrarily ban backyard archery practice, for example? Nor criminalize carrying a slung bow (all compound bows given the difficulty of unstringing in the field) on or in a motor vehicle.

Maybe removing archery equipment from the list of dangerous weapons does that. I just don't know.

Charles


But aren't municipalities authorized to regulate/restrict the discharge of firearms now? Wouldn't including archery equipment in state pre-emption then also allow municipalities to regulate backyard archery practice? I know, for example, Wellsville prohibits the discharge of even BB and airsoft guns within the city, though I would have it otherwise. :dunno:
If the American people understand the Constitution, freedom can survive a government that ignores the Constitution, because the people can intervene. But if the American people as a whole are ignorant of the Constitution, freedom is ultimately doomed.
User avatar
Liberty Nut
Marksman
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon 20 Feb 2012 4:36 am
Location: Cache Valley

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby RustyShackleford » Mon 27 Jan 2014 7:33 am

My guess is that a legislator or a good friend of a legislator owns an Archery Store or involved in something similar.
These nonsense, preemptive laws (laws that make you a criminal where there is no victim) come up all the time.
If you consider yourself an American, and are not yet on a government watchlist...You're Not Trying.
User avatar
RustyShackleford
Sniper
 
Posts: 2661
Joined: Wed 26 Aug 2009 8:55 am
Location: St. George UT

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby JoeSparky » Mon 27 Jan 2014 5:15 pm

Archery and bb or pellet gun discharge is already prohibited in PG now
JoeSparky
GOA Life Member
NRA Life Member
NAGR Member
UCC
OCDO

Remember IANAL
Praying that OUR Country can be returned to it's greatness and to it's CONSTITUTION!
JoeSparky
Sniper
 
Posts: 2901
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008 2:34 am
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby Creek » Tue 28 Jan 2014 8:22 am

I bet it has something to do with letting bow hunters hunt deer within city limits, like in the cemeteries, open vacant fields etc....
Instructor:
NRA Basic Pistol
NRA Refuse To Be a Victim
NRA Range Safety Officer
Utah CFP
NRA Personal Protection In The home
NRA Personal Protection Outside The Home
Creek
Marksman
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri 01 Feb 2013 7:26 pm

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby David Nelson » Wed 05 Feb 2014 12:10 pm

This bill has been substituted (http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/HB0268.html) to provide that:

This bill redefines dangerous weapon and exempts archery equipment from the definition.

This bill:
. defines dangerous weapon as a firearm or an object which is used unlawfully to inflict serious bodily injury;
. exempts archery equipment, including crossbows, from the definition of dangerous weapon; and
. makes technical corrections.
David Nelson
Utah

Is it more treasonous to violate the Constitution or to expose the violation?
David Nelson
Expert Marksman
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004 1:47 am

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby DaKnife » Wed 05 Feb 2014 5:20 pm

The more I read and re-read the text of this bill and now the substitution, the more I like it. If passed it would require unlawful use for a pocket knife or other tool to be called a dangerous weapon. This benefits not only archery enthusiasts.
SPOOOOOOON!!!

WARNING: This comment may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm, in every other state it may increase intelligence and knowledge.
User avatar
DaKnife
Sniper
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Thu 06 Jan 2011 12:16 pm
Location: Riverdale

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby DaKnife » Wed 05 Feb 2014 5:39 pm

Too bad it hasn't already been passed and signed into law. This kid https://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=28616328&nid=148&title=student-who-brought-pellet-gun-to-school-located&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-2 could use this new version of the law.
SPOOOOOOON!!!

WARNING: This comment may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm, in every other state it may increase intelligence and knowledge.
User avatar
DaKnife
Sniper
 
Posts: 2400
Joined: Thu 06 Jan 2011 12:16 pm
Location: Riverdale

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby dewittdj » Wed 05 Feb 2014 8:26 pm

David Nelson wrote:
AKM wrote:Does anyone know the reason for this bill? It changes the definition of a Dangerous Weapon to exclude archery equipment being used to hunt or for recreation....

I support the idea that a weapon is dangerous because of the user's intent, not because of a law deeming it so. But, I realize that firearms will probably never enjoy the same redefinition that the sponsor wants to give to archery equipment, thus creating an even more strident demonization of firearms when they remain the only weapons listed as "dangerous."

:thumbsup:
Save $10-1yr: new or renewal:
3yr-$70, 5yr-$100, Life-$750
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?campaignid=XI028543
dewittdj
Top Shot
 
Posts: 5258
Joined: Sat 07 Aug 2010 10:36 pm
Location: Northern Utah

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby Utah_patriot » Thu 13 Feb 2014 11:16 am

The bill just changed again still reading the bill trying to figure it out.
Zachary
801-448-7574
User avatar
Utah_patriot
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon 26 Jul 2004 9:23 am
Location: Salt Lake City

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby Lokidude » Fri 14 Feb 2014 5:24 pm

Creek wrote:I bet it has something to do with letting bow hunters hunt deer within city limits, like in the cemeteries, open vacant fields etc....


Smart money agrees with you.
Lokidude
Marksman
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Sun 22 May 2011 9:12 pm
Location: West Valley City

Re: HB 268 Dangerous Weapons Amendments

Postby David Nelson » Fri 14 Mar 2014 8:41 am

This bill was passed by the Utah Legislature and has been prepared for the governor's signature or veto.
David Nelson
Utah

Is it more treasonous to violate the Constitution or to expose the violation?
David Nelson
Expert Marksman
 
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed 18 Aug 2004 1:47 am

Next

Return to Utah & Federal Bills For or Against Gun Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests