HB 276 just passed the house

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.

Re: HB 276 just passed the house

Postby DaKnife » Fri 14 Mar 2014 1:35 pm

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
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 276 just passed the house

Postby bagpiper » Fri 14 Mar 2014 3:45 pm

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

Re: HB 276 just passed the house

Postby JoeSparky » Fri 14 Mar 2014 8:04 pm

bagpiper wrote:
DaKnife wrote: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?
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 276 just passed the house

Postby bagpiper » Fri 14 Mar 2014 10:42 pm

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

Re: HB 276 just passed the house

Postby UtahRSO » Wed 26 Mar 2014 11:36 pm

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!
User avatar
UtahRSO
Marksman
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 03 May 2004 7:08 am
Location: Lehi, Utah

Re: HB 276 just passed the house

Postby JoeSparky » Wed 26 Mar 2014 11:57 pm

bagpiper wrote:
JoeSparky wrote:
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!
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 276 just passed the house

Postby Luv10mm » Thu 27 Mar 2014 7:03 am

JoeSparky wrote: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? :dunno: 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.
Luv10mm
Expert Marksman
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Fri 16 Jul 2010 2:05 pm
Location: Salt Lake City, UT

Re: HB 276 just passed the house

Postby Car Knocker » Thu 27 Mar 2014 7:39 am

UtahRSO wrote: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.
Don

-->insert witty and/or inspirational message here<--
User avatar
Car Knocker
Posse
 
Posts: 4563
Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004 3:41 pm
Location: Longmont, CO

Re: HB 276 just passed the house

Postby bagpiper » Thu 27 Mar 2014 10:22 am

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

Re: HB 276 just passed the house

Postby JoeSparky » Fri 28 Mar 2014 12:18 pm

bagpiper wrote:
JoeSparky wrote:
bagpiper wrote: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
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 276 just passed the house

Postby Utah_patriot » Fri 28 Mar 2014 5:02 pm

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

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
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 276 just passed the house

Postby rpyne » Fri 28 Mar 2014 7:36 pm

Utah_patriot wrote: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.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" -- Barry Goldwater, Acceptance Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential candidate.
rpyne
Expert Marksman
 
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun 06 Apr 2008 12:00 pm
Location: Provo, UT

Re: HB 276 just passed the house

Postby DaKnife » Fri 28 Mar 2014 10:30 pm

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.
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 276 just passed the house

Postby Creek » Sun 30 Mar 2014 6:12 am

So as of yesterday this became law right?
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 276 just passed the house

Postby Utah_patriot » Sun 30 Mar 2014 7:10 am

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

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Zachary
801-448-7574
User avatar
Utah_patriot
Sharp Shooter
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon 26 Jul 2004 9:23 am
Location: Salt Lake City

PreviousNext

Return to Utah & Federal Bills For or Against Gun Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests