Utah Guns Forum banner

S.B. 220 Disorderly Conduct Modifications (Sen. Bramble, C.)

3K views 8 replies 5 participants last post by  Utah_patriot 
#1 ·
According to S.B. 220 Disorderly Conduct Modifications (Sen. Bramble, C.) (http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/SB0165.html):

This bill includes displaying a dangerous weapon under certain circumstances in the definition of disorderly conduct.

This bill:
. provides that displaying a dangerous weapon in public under certain circumstances may be disorderly conduct;
. confirms that merely displaying a dangerous weapon in public without other behavior is not disorderly conduct;
. adds a requirement that an arrest made for disorderly conduct related to the display of a dangerous weapon be reported to the Concealed Firearm Review Board;
. requires the Concealed Firearm Review Board to submit an annual written report to the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee on arrests made for disorderly conduct related to the display of a dangerous weapon;
. enacts a sunset review date; and
. makes technical changes.
 
#3 ·
94 (i) displays a dangerous weapon in a public place under circumstances that would
95 cause a reasonable person to fear for the safety of any person;
105 (3) The mere possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, does
106 not constitute an offense under Subsection (1).
107 (4) A law enforcement agency shall report an arrest made for disorderly conduct
108 described in Subsection (1)(b)(i) to the Concealed Firearm Review Board, created in Section
109 53-5-703 , within 30 days.
Nope. Do not like at all. The law is poorly written. It contradicts itself. If you OC a gun and the fact that you are merely possessing it, as the carrier in JCPenney did, then line 105 says you cannot be found guilty. Line 94 says you CAN be found guilty if someone else didn't like it.
 
#4 ·
Bad bill. The sponsor will likely claim it is an effort to do "something" rather than nothing. But bad is worse than nothing.

I believe Paul Ray's HB 276 is a good bill that moves us part way down the road to where we want to be. This SB 220 by Bramble looks to be a step backwards in my estimation.

Charles
 
#6 ·
We have disorderly conduct laws on the books already .. why do we need this? I fear this is a move to assist in creating a "visible gun" equals disorderly conduct perception with the people and police. We've seen these laws abused in other states recently. and we don't need this here. Please call or write your senator and ask for a no vote on this S.B.220 proposal.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top