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.
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."
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.
...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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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."
Especially in combination with the state knife-preemption laws.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Utah Guns Forum
232.4K posts
2.6K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to firearm owners and enthusiasts in Utah. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!