HB 276 just passed the house

[DaKnife]

I hope you are right but a long history of OEO's harassing and even arresting armed citizens does not lead to confidence.

Tapatalking via my Galaxy S4

[bagpiper]

I hope you are right but a long history of OEO's harassing and even arresting armed citizens does not lead to confidence.

It is the long history of OEOs harassing and arresting citizens that lead to us spending four years to pass this bill. Kind of a shame we weren't able to include all legal OC in the safe harbor against DoC. But some very unfortunately timed incidents made that impossible for the time being.

As common as you believe OEOs harassing and arresting citizens is, it is unlikely this change in law could make things any worse for those who OC unholstered firearms. But it should make prosecution and conviction on DoC of those OCing holstered guns all but impossible unless there is more going on that just OCing.

Charles

[JoeSparky]

I hope you are right but a long history of OEO's harassing and even arresting armed citizens does not lead to confidence.

It is the long history of OEOs harassing and arresting citizens that lead to us spending four years to pass this bill. Kind of a shame we weren't able to include all legal OC in the safe harbor against DoC. But some very unfortunately timed incidents made that impossible for the time being.

As common as you believe OEOs harassing and arresting citizens is, it is unlikely this change in law could make things any worse for those who OC unholstered firearms. But it should make prosecution and conviction on DoC of those OCing holstered guns all but impossible unless there is more going on that just OCing.

Charles

And just as it should be relative to your last sentence above....

IF my actions (without a firearm) don't rise to the level of being properly charged with disorderly conduct then WHY should the exact same behavior (with a firearm) be disorderly conduct?

[bagpiper]

IF my actions (without a firearm) don't rise to the level of being properly charged with disorderly conduct then WHY should the exact same behavior (with a firearm) be disorderly conduct?

To a first order, I'd agree they should not.

But to a second order, I think we have to concede that the visible presence of a gun does change something. How often do we argue the benefits of OC by talking about deterrent effect or the opportunities to educate? Logically then, having a visible gun changes something about a situation. Is it possible that in certain cases conduct that might be borderline legal without a visible gun cross the line into illegal when a visible gun is present? I have to concede that maybe.

Let me give an overly simple example. If you are at the park and a kid is playing with an "air bat" pretending to hit grand slams, and at some point says, "Mister you're sitting in my swing zone. Move or I might bash you on the head with this thing," your reaction is likely going to be different than if that same kid has been hitting real balls with a very real steal bat in his hands and says the same thing. The visible presence of the real bat changes the situation from some kind of joke to something potentially much more serious.

The guy loitering around for no reason, or waving the placard about "Resisting the IRS" may be just a harmless crackpot. Add a visible gun, and maybe something changes given the totality of the situation.

I think in practice, and absent any anti-gun agenda, such cases of the gun being present making the difference between legal and DoC are probably extremely rare. Which is exactly why I support a blanket safe harbor against DoC for otherwise legally OCing a firearm. But on deep reflection and some recent experience, I have to concede that I think they are possible. If nothing else, let us concede that in certain cases the unarmed guy may get ignored even if his conduct is technically a mild violation of DoC while the armed guy is likely to have the law more fully enforced against him. We have to be above reproach.

Charles

[UtahRSO]

Anyone know when/whether the governor has signed this bill into law? Slowly, slowly, Utah laws come closer and closer to Article 1-Section 6 of the Utah Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to the U.S Constitution. Kudos to our legislature!

[JoeSparky]

IF my actions (without a firearm) don't rise to the level of being properly charged with disorderly conduct then WHY should the exact same behavior (with a firearm) be disorderly conduct?

To a first order, I'd agree they should not.

But to a second order, I think we have to concede that the visible presence of a gun does change something. How often do we argue the benefits of OC by talking about deterrent effect or the opportunities to educate? Logically then, having a visible gun changes something about a situation. Is it possible that in certain cases conduct that might be borderline legal without a visible gun cross the line into illegal when a visible gun is present? I have to concede that maybe.

Let me give an overly simple example. If you are at the park and a kid is playing with an "air bat" pretending to hit grand slams, and at some point says, "Mister you're sitting in my swing zone. Move or I might bash you on the head with this thing," your reaction is likely going to be different than if that same kid has been hitting real balls with a very real steal bat in his hands and says the same thing. The visible presence of the real bat changes the situation from some kind of joke to something potentially much more serious.

The guy loitering around for no reason, or waving the placard about "Resisting the IRS" may be just a harmless crackpot. Add a visible gun, and maybe something changes given the totality of the situation.

I think in practice, and absent any anti-gun agenda, such cases of the gun being present making the difference between legal and DoC are probably extremely rare. Which is exactly why I support a blanket safe harbor against DoC for otherwise legally OCing a firearm. But on deep reflection and some recent experience, I have to concede that I think they are possible. If nothing else, let us concede that in certain cases the unarmed guy may get ignored even if his conduct is technically a mild violation of DoC while the armed guy is likely to have the law more fully enforced against him. We have to be above reproach.

Charles

I'll have to disagree with your situation here. IF I am STUPID enough to INTENTIONALLY sit in the "swing zone" of someone with ANY kind of bat to the point that THEY have to ask me to move for my safety--- I AM THE ONE INFRINGING, NOT THE BAT SWINGER DOING NOTHING BUT TRYING TO PLAY!
IF I am UNOBSERVANT enough that he has to ask me to move---- I AM THE STILL THE ONE AT FAULT.

In each of these two cases, it is incumbent upon the one IMPOSING himself into the "Swing zone" to PROTECT themselves or risk INJURY! Either way all you have suggested is a SIMPLE REQUEST that I move to protect myself. I see NO threat to INTENTIONALLY cause injury, simply the recognition that there is a risk and injury MAY occur if I don't move myself to a location MORE SAFE!

[Luv10mm]

I'll have to disagree with your situation here. IF I am STUPID enough to INTENTIONALLY sit in the "swing zone" of someone with ANY kind of bat to the point that THEY have to ask me to move for my safety--- I AM THE ONE INFRINGING, NOT THE BAT SWINGER DOING NOTHING BUT TRYING TO PLAY!
IF I am UNOBSERVANT enough that he has to ask me to move---- I AM THE STILL THE ONE AT FAULT.

In each of these two cases, it is incumbent upon the one IMPOSING himself into the "Swing zone" to PROTECT themselves or risk INJURY! Either way all you have suggested is a SIMPLE REQUEST that I move to protect myself. I see NO threat to INTENTIONALLY cause injury, simply the recognition that there is a risk and injury MAY occur if I don't move myself to a location MORE SAFE!

Uh, I think you may have missed his point with that scenario, or are perhaps focusing on the wrong part. The details of the hypothetical are less important than the plastic bat/real bat distinction. I.e., if you are in danger of potentially getting hit by a bat, does it change anything if the bat is plastic vs aluminum/wood? For most of us, I think the answer is yes. Your response to the danger may be the same, but how you interpret the risk of serious injury is likely different.

So, I guess that scenario would be compared to: Does an unholstered firearm cause people to think a greater danger is afoot vs a holstered firearm? For me, I only feel a greater danger if it is being pointed at me, or carried in the hand (ready to be pointed at me). Perhaps I'm in the minority though. Going off that, is the feeling of greater danger grounds for a DoC charge? Doubtful, but maybe they can convince a jury/judge.

I still see this bill as a step in the right direction. The next step will hopefully be for unholstered firearms.

[Car Knocker]

Anyone know when/whether the governor has signed this bill into law? Slowly, slowly, Utah laws come closer and closer to Article 1-Section 6 of the Utah Constitution and the 2nd Amendment to the U.S Constitution. Kudos to our legislature!

I don't believe that the governor has taken any action on it yet.

[bagpiper]

Let me give an overly simple example. If you are at the park and a kid is playing with an "air bat" pretending to hit grand slams, and at some point says, "Mister you're sitting in my swing zone. Move or I might bash you on the head with this thing," your reaction is likely going to be different than if that same kid has been hitting real balls with a very real steal bat in his hands and says the same thing. The visible presence of the real bat changes the situation from some kind of joke to something potentially much more serious.

...

I think in practice, and absent any anti-gun agenda, such cases of the gun being present making the difference between legal and DoC are probably extremely rare. Which is exactly why I support a blanket safe harbor against DoC for otherwise legally OCing a firearm. But on deep reflection and some recent experience, I have to concede that I think they are possible. If nothing else, let us concede that in certain cases the unarmed guy may get ignored even if his conduct is technically a mild violation of DoC while the armed guy is likely to have the law more fully enforced against him. We have to be above reproach.

I'll have to disagree with your situation here. IF I am STUPID enough to INTENTIONALLY sit in the "swing zone" of someone with ANY kind of bat to the point that THEY have to ask me to move for my safety--- I AM THE ONE INFRINGING, NOT THE BAT SWINGER DOING NOTHING BUT TRYING TO PLAY!
IF I am UNOBSERVANT enough that he has to ask me to move---- I AM THE STILL THE ONE AT FAULT.

Joe,

As Luv10mm pointed out, you've focused on the wrong part of what I freely admitted was an overly simplistic analogy. It isn't about who is at fault. It is about whether the visible presence of a weapon can change conduct from legal to illegal. Please read my analogy again as an overly simplistic example of how the visible presence of a weapon might change otherwise legal/harmless/funny conduct into conduct that crosses the line into something illegal or at least legitimately concerning.

Note that I also said that in practice, such a change from legal to illegal simply because a gun is introduced is probably very rare. But I do have to concede that in theory it is possible for conduct that is perfectly legal absent a gun (or other weapon) to change to something potentially illegal if a gun is present and especially if it is visible. Please don't ask for any specific examples. In my mind it is rare enough that I'm having hard time coming up with any concrete examples beyond the silly little air/plastic vs wood/metal bat analogy I've already used and the possibly situation of someone loitering and being ignored if unarmed, but drawing attention and charges if armed in a way that concerns others.

Charles

[JoeSparky]

Let me give an overly simple example. If you are at the park and a kid is playing with an "air bat" pretending to hit grand slams, and at some point says, "Mister you're sitting in my swing zone. Move or I might bash you on the head with this thing," your reaction is likely going to be different than if that same kid has been hitting real balls with a very real steal bat in his hands and says the same thing. The visible presence of the real bat changes the situation from some kind of joke to something potentially much more serious.

...

I think in practice, and absent any anti-gun agenda, such cases of the gun being present making the difference between legal and DoC are probably extremely rare. Which is exactly why I support a blanket safe harbor against DoC for otherwise legally OCing a firearm. But on deep reflection and some recent experience, I have to concede that I think they are possible. If nothing else, let us concede that in certain cases the unarmed guy may get ignored even if his conduct is technically a mild violation of DoC while the armed guy is likely to have the law more fully enforced against him. We have to be above reproach.

I'll have to disagree with your situation here. IF I am STUPID enough to INTENTIONALLY sit in the "swing zone" of someone with ANY kind of bat to the point that THEY have to ask me to move for my safety--- I AM THE ONE INFRINGING, NOT THE BAT SWINGER DOING NOTHING BUT TRYING TO PLAY!
IF I am UNOBSERVANT enough that he has to ask me to move---- I AM THE STILL THE ONE AT FAULT.

I guess I completely missed the "threatening" behavior of a young kid PLAYING with his bat and ball.
Joe,

As Luv10mm pointed out, you've focused on the wrong part of what I freely admitted was an overly simplistic analogy. It isn't about who is at fault. It is about whether the visible presence of a weapon can change conduct from legal to illegal. Please read my analogy again as an overly simplistic example of how the visible presence of a weapon might change otherwise legal/harmless/funny conduct into conduct that crosses the line into something illegal or at least legitimately concerning.

Note that I also said that in practice, such a change from legal to illegal simply because a gun is introduced is probably very rare. But I do have to concede that in theory it is possible for conduct that is perfectly legal absent a gun (or other weapon) to change to something potentially illegal if a gun is present and especially if it is visible. Please don't ask for any specific examples. In my mind it is rare enough that I'm having hard time coming up with any concrete examples beyond the silly little air/plastic vs wood/metal bat analogy I've already used and the possibly situation of someone loitering and being ignored if unarmed, but drawing attention and charges if armed in a way that concerns others.

Charles

[Utah_patriot]

So just got a update by email bill says enrolled does that mean it's now law?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[rpyne]

So just got a update by email bill says enrolled does that mean it's now law?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Nope. It just means that the final version that was passed has been properly recorded in the legislative journal. It is then sent to the governor for action.

If you just got the notification, something is running painfully, the bill status web site shows that it was enrolled on the 19th and sent to the governor on the 21st.

[DaKnife]

And the Guv has 10 days not counting Sundays to veto it, sign it, or ignore it. Anything but a veto and it becomes law.

[Creek]

So as of yesterday this became law right?

[Utah_patriot]

That's my question as well with what effective date?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk