Utah Guns Forum banner

HB 276 just passed the house

17K views 80 replies 20 participants last post by  LibertyNut 
#1 ·
I saw a post on Facebook (Utah Gun Rights group) that said HB 276 passed the house. I believe this is the bill that is trying to make sure a person can't be charged with Disorderly Conduct just for having a holstered firearms concealed or open. If I remember correctly, there were two such bills and the consensus was that one was bad and one good. Is this the good one?

Here's the text of the FB post:

Bad Bill Alert for 3/11/14: HB 276: Violence Against Open Carry Gun Owners Passes House!
Did you (or a friend) strap on a rifle for a rally/hearing, or to sell outside a gun show? If HB 276 passes, unholstered open carry gun owners will be targeted for violent harassment and arrest. Other gun owners will be at increased risk of abuse as well.

HB 276 bill passed House Monarchess Rebecca Lockhart's hand-picked law [sic] enforcement and criminal justice committee, passed the house final floor vote (54-17-4), and is currently in Senate Monarch's hand-picked rules committee, awaiting senate floor action. Learn more about this imminent threat (with pictures and many source links) and appropriate action you can take at
http://utgunrights.com/alertsupdates/20 ... /hb276.htm

Why Are "Gun Rights" Groups Supporting Gun Control?
In the 2013 Utah Government Corruption Report, a 2013 rally flier, and elsewhere, UT Gun Rights warned how false friends appear to be on your side, but fundamentally serve the purposes of your opposition. And how important it is to remain apprehensive about those who tell you things you want to hear.

UT Gun Rights also revealed a secret communication between Utah Shooting Sports Council (USSC) chairman W. Clark Aposhian and Mike Mower, Executive Monarch Gary Herbert's Deputy for Community Outreach. In it, Aposhian appeared to secretively facilitate opposition to last year's gun rights bill HB 76 (i.e. to carry "unloaded" firearms concealed without a permit). To read the transcript, see this threat briefing online.

Unfortunately, the betrayals and undermining of your rights continue. According to a recent alert by the USSC, HB 276,

"…Is a well-reasoned bill which will take pressure off of both law-enforcement and the courts. It supplies law enforcement with more precise guidance on what constitutes disorderly conduct so as to not punish innocent activities."
Source: USSC Alert for January 23, 2014.

Why would this organization, which claims to represent the rights of Utah's gun owners, argue such nonsense? Could it possibly have missed previous sponsor Paul Ray's public and oft-repeated objectives? Or is it complicit in the effort to attack gun owners who choose to carry openly?

USSC mentioned the "concern" UT Gun Rights has consistently raised in the following manner:

"Firearms that are not encased or not holstered would continue to be treated as they are today. Carrying guns in such a manner would not necessarily be disorderly conduct, most law enforcement officers would respect your right to carry in such a manner, and the few miscreant law enforcement officers who have been abusing gun owners would continue to do so.

"Improving gun laws is an ongoing process and we hope to make more improvements to this section of the law in the future.

"A concern that has been raised with the above language is that since it explicitly exempts holstered and encased firearms from disorderly conduct it would imply that the carrying of un-encased or un-holstered firearms is disorderly conduct. Both our and NRA's legal counsel has looked at this and determined that this is not the case."
Source: USSC alert for Mar. 6, 2014.

How comforting. And where are these attorneys' substantive arguments in support of such a claim? Perhaps nothing more is provided because it would subject them to condemnation and ridicule.

USSC would have you base your position on HB 276 solely on trusting their (and supposedly the NRA's) attorneys. Was it USSC's attorney who determined last year that USSC Chairman Clark Aposhian should undertake secretive efforts to coordinate the opposition to HB 76 by the Crossroads of the West Gun Show owner to governor Herbert's staff?

Should you likewise trust the legal judgment of the NRA? For example, in 2002 the NRA supported SB 950 in California to create the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS). On January 27, 2014, the NRA issued an alert regarding the monster APPS they helped to create by stating,

"While these raids [resulting from APPS] are promoted by politicians as intended to disarm dangerous criminals, they actually more often target unsuspecting citizens who present no danger and have no idea that they are prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition."

Are USSC and the NRA engaged in a sickening "job security" program by promoting anti-gun owner bills and politicians and then "being there" to help fight against the terrible consequences they helped to create?

USSC is not alone in subjecting Utah's open carry gun owners to potential violent attack by government statute enforcement agents. According to GoUtah!:

"The 'reasonable person' standard as used in this bill creates a high level of protection for someone who is legally and peaceably carrying a holstered self-defense weapon. The language invoking the hypothetical 'reasonable person' is a long-established legal standard used in many existing statutes, including Utah's self-defense law.

"This is a big improvement over the existing law in our opinion, and HB276 as currently written would enable us to achieve this improvement without surrendering any freedoms that we already have. It's the equivalent of taking two steps forward without taking any steps backward on our journey toward greater legal recognition of the right to bear arms."
Source: GoUtah! alert for Jan. 29, 2014.

There's that pesky gun control keyword again: "holstered". What about those who strap them on or hold them proudly at rallies, as their forefathers did before them? Their rights, apparently, are no longer included by organizations like USSC and GoUtah!.

GoUtah! reacted to UT Gun Rights' above criticisms of HB 276. Unfortunately, it failed to provide substantive facts or analysis to back up its repeated claims.

Consider that, were USSC's or GoUtah!'s opinions indeed accurate, then the previous bill sponsor, statutator Paul Ray, is either lying to the public, or obliviously unaware of what his own bill would have actually accomplished.

Appropriate Actions
Read the following threat briefing on HB 276 (with pictures and many source links), including appropriate actions you can take, at
http://utgunrights.com/alertsupdates/20 ... /hb276.htm

Statutory Session Ends THIS THURSDAY March 13th!
This statutory session ends on March 13th at Midnight, and there are numerous active threats to your rights. Watch the 2014 Bill Tracking Page: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly at
http://utgunrights.com/alertsupdates/20 ... adugly.htm
 
#77 ·
ObiRich said:
Snurd said:
A step in the right direction for sure. I'm glad he signed it.

(Sent from iSnurd)
Still doesn't make up for him vetoing the gutted constitutional carry law from last year.
On that note, would this law make for a future constitutional carry bill to be unneeded? This has been the only downside of this bill sitting on the back of my mind since announced. I can see that possibly now that OC is "completely" safe that some may not see need for another try at constitutional carry.
 
#78 ·
Photocell said:
On that note, would this law make for a future constitutional carry bill to be unneeded? This has been the only downside of this bill sitting on the back of my mind since announced. I can see that possibly now that OC is "completely" safe that some may not see need for another try at constitutional carry.
Still need a permit to carry concealed, something that CC would eliminate except for those who want to CCW in other states that recognize the Utah CFP.
 
#79 ·
Car Knocker said:
Still need a permit to carry concealed, something that CC would eliminate except for those who want to CCW in other states that recognize the Utah CFP.
The other thing ConCarry does is help set the tone. This is subtle, but important.

Do we really suppose that Heller would have been decided at is was had it been heard 30 years earlier before shall issue laws made self-defense with handguns common? From the 60s to the 90s, at least, it was very rare for average, law-abiding persons to carry handguns for self-defense. It was almost impossible to do so legally unless you were a businessman or well connected politically.

When the SCOTUS ruled against executing criminals who committed their crimes before they turned 18 years old, they cited the majority of State laws to that effect to support their ruling that such executions were "cruel and unusual".

Between out-of-State travel and compliance with federal GFSZ laws in Utah (we've got a lot of kids and a lot of schools), the vast majority of our population will continue to need a permit to carry to comply with existing laws. A few folks in rural areas could get by without a permit as long as they don't intend to carry into town (some towns don't have more than 1000' between the school and the only main road in town) or into our suburban and urban areas.

I believe that passage of ConCarry will have very little if any immediate, practical effect for the vast majority of Utahns.

But I believe it would have a significant, even crucial, longer term effect as it would help continue, maybe accelerate the passage of similar laws elsewhere and help set the tone that carrying a gun outside the home is a fundamental right not subject to government licensing. That could ultimately play an important role in court cases about federal all kinds of federal and State gun laws.

Charles
 
#80 ·
Car Knocker said:
Photocell said:
On that note, would this law make for a future constitutional carry bill to be unneeded? This has been the only downside of this bill sitting on the back of my mind since announced. I can see that possibly now that OC is "completely" safe that some may not see need for another try at constitutional carry.
Still need a permit to carry concealed, something that CC would eliminate except for those who want to CCW in other states that recognize the Utah CFP.
Still need a permit to open carry with "one in the pipe" too.
 
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