WEAKENED BILL PASSES HOUSE

The original HB 76 allowed adults (21 or older) without concealed carry government "permits" to carry "loaded" firearms in public, to include vehicles, and on, or near, school and university grounds.  HB 76 Substitute 1 passed the house and senate and appears to do the following:

1) "Allows" adults (21 or older) without concealed carry government "permits" to carry concealed firearms in an "unloaded" condition, which theoretically means no bullet is in the chamber or, in the case of revolvers, in a firing position (where one action of the hammer or pull of the trigger could fire the weapon — which would theoretically mean the bullet lined up with the barrel and the bullet following it).

2) Adults (21 or older) could conceal firearms in this "unloaded" condition in any area currently authorized to concealed carry government "permit" holders — with the exclusion of any school or university grounds.
Note: Current federal gun control statute 18 USC 922(q)(1) does prohibit carrying a firearm — openly or concealed — in school zones without a state-issued "license" to include some type of "[qualification]... under the law".  Also notice that paragraph (3) does not exempt permit holders from prosecution if they discharge a firearm on a school ground in lawful self defense of defense of another.

3) Opens the door of confusion and potential harassment of innocent gun owners through use of the term "unloaded".  Will police be checking to see if anyone is carrying concealed under the auspices of ensuring that weapons are in an "unloaded" condition?

Why was HB 76 weakened? Because gun owners sit at the back of the political bus.

LOADED TERMS IN STATUTE

State statute 76-10-502 contains a definition of the term "loaded":

76-10-502. When weapon deemed loaded.
(1) For the purpose of this chapter, any pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle, or other weapon described in this part shall be deemed to be loaded when there is an unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile in the firing position.
(2) Pistols and revolvers shall also be deemed to be loaded when an unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile is in a position whereby the manual operation of any mechanism once would cause the unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile to be fired.
(3) A muzzle loading firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinders.

And state statute 76-10-501 defines "concealed dangerous weapon":

(3) (a) "Concealed dangerous weapon" means a dangerous weapon that is:
(i) covered, hidden, or secreted in a manner that the public would not be aware of its presence; and
(ii) readily accessible for immediate use.
(b) A dangerous weapon is not a concealed dangerous weapon if it is a firearm which is unloaded and is securely encased.

An "unloaded" condition is assumed to be anything other than a "loaded" condition, though we are unaware of any definition of "unloaded" in statute or administrative rules (the fourth branch of Utah government — see our threat assessment of HB 256 for more information). 

As implied above, we are unsure if there is a disclosure requirement applicable to this mode of carry if one encounters a government agent, as would be the case in other statutory sections dealing with government "permit" carry.  Absent credible information against it, however, UT Gun Rights still supports this weakened substitute bill.

Opponents of HB 76 S1 argue that allowance for carry of unloaded, concealed firearms is already addressed for those who subject themselves to the Utah "permit" system and the invasion of privacy that it entails.  In theory it is impossible for the permit information that the state holds to escape to unauthorized persons.

However, recent events demonstrate a shocking failure of the state in protecting private information held by the state as indicated by the theft of records involving nearly a million people in 2012.  As well, the state may change the statutes and subject permit holders to public scrutiny as happened in New York state.  Finally, it was brought to the attention of gun owners last month in consideration of HB 317 that state government bureaucrats have many escapes from prosecution should they fail to protect private records.

Therefore, you may choose to carry concealed by subjecting yourself to a shameful and degrading invasion of personal privacy by the state and potential public disclosure of your information.  Or you may carry concealed without a permit and face arrest, prosecution, and jail time.  Meanwhile, violent criminals, against whom you are entitled to viably defend yourself, carry knives and loaded firearms concealed ANY TIME THEY CHOOSE with repercussions irrelevant to the crimes that they commit. 

BILL STATUS

The original bill passed the house judiciary committee (6 yeas, 2 nays, 0 absent/not voting), and this weakened substitute bill passed the house final vote (51 yeas, 18 nays, 6 absent/not voting), passed the senate final vote (22 yeas, 7 nays, 0 absent/not voting), was vetoed by the governor, and failed the legislature's poll whether to hold an override session for the bill (16 yeas, 13 nays in the senate and 41 yeas, 34 nays in the house).  For our latest alert on HB 76 S1, click here.

OBSERVATIONS

Why do legislators only seem to have time and energy to rush horrible bills through, but have all sorts of time to hem and haw and water down bills like HB 76?

They who must be obeyed: senate monarch Wayne Niederhauser and house monarchess Rebecca Lockart.

As "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative," effectively demonstrates, the house speaker, in this case Rebecca Lockhart (district 64), and senate president, Wayne Niederhauser, are veritable monarchs.  Among other inordinate powers, they alone appoint EVERY member of EVERY committee — without any required review or confirmation process.  Bills live or die almost entirely upon their whims and wishes, and your "representative" and "senator" merely serve their will and agenda.

As a recent Deseret News article reveals, house majority leader and sub-monarch of sorts, Brad Dee, actually led the charge to delay HB 76 on the house floor, whereupon it was weakened to the current substitute bill.

Senate monarch Wayne Niederhauser has already publicly indicated his displeasure with HB 76 S1:

"Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, R-Sandy, said Senate Republicans have not yet talked about how they'll handle HB76.  'I think now that we know it's coming, we'll discuss the bill,' he said. Niederhauser, however, expressed his own concerns about the bill.  'The  concealed carry law has functioned well,' the Senate leader said. 'I hate to see that diminished in any way.'"
Source: "'Constitutional carry' gun bill passes House after change," Lisa Riley Roche, Deseret News, March 1 2013.

Isn't it fascinating that Niederhauser is so sensitive to HB 76 S1, but appears to feel no such anxiety with regard to multiple gun control bills flying through his senate?

Meanwhile, governor Gary Herbert had this to share:

"Gov. Gary Herbert said Thursday he's not happy with the so-called 'constitutional carry' bill that would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit and repeated his belief that new gun laws aren't needed this session.

'I think the laws we have on the books right now protect our Second Amendment rights,' the governor told reporters. He said met with the sponsor of HB76, Rep. John Mathis, R-Vernal, and expressed his displeasure."
Source: "Gov. Gary Herbert says he doesn't like 'constitutional carry' bill," by Lisa Riley Roche, Deseret News, Feb. 28 2013.

Governor Gary Herbert is employing "The Winder Defense".  To learn more, click here.

After the Utah Sheriffs Association wrote a letter in opposition to the Obama regime's gun control agenda, Herbert expressed the following:

"The governor also said he believes a letter from the Utah Sheriffs Association to the president, stating that its 28 sheriff members — all but Salt Lake County would not enforce gun laws they believed violate the constitutional right to bear arms, was also an overreaction.

"'I think it was probably an emotional, knee-jerk reaction to the idea that Washington is somehow going to tell us what we're going to do,' Herbert said. 'If we don't like the laws that are passed, if we don't like the executive orders, we have a process in place. Go to court. We don't have to have confrontations at the border. Go to court and we'll find out whether it's the law of the land or not, but Utah will adhere to the law of the land.'" [bold added]
Source: "Herbert says Utah will follow federal gun laws," by Robert Gehrke, Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 24, 2013.

For more background on this story, including our response to both governor Herbert and his comrade in disarmament, Salt Lake County sheriff Jim Winder, click here.

Other views & opinions to compare and contrast: Alliance for a Better Utah; Deseret News; GoUtah!; Libertas Institute; Salt Lake Tribune; St George News; Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah; Utah Gun Owners video; Utah Shooting Sports Council.

Top

House sponsor, LaVar Christensen

House Bill 313 (amended):

Reducing the Power of Court Dictators [aka "Rights of Parents and Children Amendments"] by representative LaVar Christensen, district 32, "Republican".

This bill would allow parents, including gun owners, to request and receive a trial by a jury of their peers PRIOR to having their parental rights terminated. UT Gun Rights strongly supports HB 313 as a first step in restoring justice to Utah courtrooms, and in providing substantive due process for innocent gun owners.

How could we possibly go wrong giving one person such awesome power?

ONE COURT DICTATOR CAN RUIN YOUR LIFE

Did you know that, in Utah, your children can be seized from you, placed in a foster home, and your rights as a parent could be forever terminated without ever being convicted of a crime?  And were you aware that this could all be done by the decision of one judge (sometimes with help from that judge's bureaucratic "court commissioner")?

One unaccountable* court dictator holds the awesome power to destroy your life, and the lives of your children.  And there is no jury of your peers to intervene.

*Note: The governor, without any substantive review or confirmation process, hand-picks all voting members of "judicial nominating commissions." These commissions select judicial candidates, the governor selects his favorite, and his favorite is confirmed by the state senate.  The "judicial council" selects court commissioners, who are deemed "quasi-judicial officers of courts of record".  Sources: Utah Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 8, and state statutes 20A-12-201, 78A-5-107, 78A-10-103, 78A-10-105, 78A-10-202, and 78A-10-204.  In order for voters to remove a judge, over 50 percent of them must be sufficiently angry at him/her to vote "no" on his/her judicial retention election.  Imagine how many lives a judge could destroy before half the voters voted "no"?

Tragically, such abuse happens regularly in Utah, and all too often one or both parents is unjustly targeted because he/she is a gun owner.  Many Utah judges and court commissioners harbor extreme statist views — to include an anti-gun agenda — and some seem to enjoy harassing and terrorizing gun owners.

VAGUE TERMINATION CRITERIA

The statutory criteria these court dictators utilize to tear parents from their children includes vaguely defined words like "abuse," "neglect," and "educational neglect," which can be twisted to mean nearly anything.  Critically examine state statute 78A-6-105 as an example.

"But the most grievous innovation of all, is the alarming extension of the power of courts of admiralty. In these courts, one judge presides alone! No juries have any concern there! The law and the fact are both to be decided by the same single judge." — John Adams

And according to state statute 78A-6-507, all the court dictator has to decide is that the parents have violated any one of these vague definitions.  No actual crime need be proven.  So guess whose "interests" will be reflected in that decision?

LOW BURDENS OF PROOF

In this nightmarish, but real, scenario, accused parents not only face a court dictator, but according to state statute 78A-6-314(2)(b), their petition to have their children returned to them can be denied by the lowest threshold of legal protection: "preponderance of the evidence."  In other words, the court dictator gets to decide if you are an unfit parent by the lowest standard of evidence.

Prima facie "evidence" of your parental unfitness includes failing to "comply with a court approved child and family plan in whole or in part" (78A-6-314(2)(c)(ii)).  And what is the "court plan"?  Whatever the court dictator wanted it to be, because he/she is often part of the "treatment plan team."
Source: "Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Embracing a Tainted Ideal," by former Utah juvenile court judge, Arthur G. Christean, Jan. 2002.

These "court plans" can include unreasonable restrictions on firearms (see next topic on the statutory environment that helps to encourage such restrictions).

If the state files a petition to permanently terminate your parental rights, the court dictator can approve it based upon "clear and convincing evidence" (see bill lines 62-63), which again means whatever the dictator thinks it is; including your failure to abide by his/her "court plan".

Keep in mind that native Americans on reservations at least enjoy the higher protection of "beyond a reasonable doubt" before their parental rights can be terminated.  (Source: Federal Indian Child Welfare Act)

Note: State proponents of this sham termination process sometimes point to state statute 78A-6-503.  Unfortunately, while this statute contains lofty, flowery language, it offers no substantive safeguards for accused parents, and no substantive restriction upon the power of the court dictator.

Forget all this talk about proofs and juries, comrade!  The state is never wrong!

OPENLY-HOSTILE STATE SYSTEM

As we outlined in our threat assessment of HB 256, the "child welfare system" is designed to be hostile toward gun owners.  If, for example, your minor child ever has access to a loaded weapon, a state caseworker could use that to build the case that you are guilty of "child endangerment," an abuser, and therefore subject to state intervention; potentially by having your child seized from you and your rights terminated.

And if your children are sent to foster care homes, those adults who do not have a concealed carry "permit," and who do not have their weapon on their person, are required to essentially live in a disarmed, or unprepared, home environment.

The underlying philosophy of the state is clear: foster parents must be unarmed, and if they are unarmed, natural parents should likewise be unarmed.

If a court dictator terminates your parental rights, such decisions can be utilized by other bureaucratic processes to further destroy your right to keep and bear arms.  For example, as we pointed out with our threat assessment of SB 80, any jury-less court decision can be sufficient grounds for the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification to revoke that person's concealed carry permit.

CONCLUSION

Time to reign in the court dictator.

Again, this bill would allow parents, including gun owners, to request and receive a trial by a jury of their peers PRIOR to having their parental rights terminated. UT Gun Rights strongly supports HB 313 as a first step in restoring justice to Utah courtrooms, and in providing substantive due process for innocent gun owners.

Judges are supposed to be courtroom referees, ensuring that the jury receives as much pertinent information as possible, and that the prosecution and defense have the opportunity to present such information.  A judge is not supposed to be a member of the "treatment plan," the jury, and also the executioner for the state agenda.

HOW THIS BILL COULD BE IMPROVED

This bill could be substantively improved by the following:

1) Require that parents be proven guilty, by a jury of their peers, of actual, serious, and purposeful criminal behavior or unfitness that renders them permanently unable to serve as parents, before their children can be permanently removed.  Before any accused loses a fundamental right, he/she must be found guilty (not innocent) through substantive due process, which includes the bedrock assurance of a TRIAL BY A JURY OF ONE'S PEERS.  See "Why Are Jury Trials Crucial to Your Freedom?" by Accountability Utah.

2) Require that the state's burden of proof be raised to the highest standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in permanent termination cases, as is the case with native American families living on Indian nation reservations.  Accused Utahans should enjoy the same protections as native Americans.

3) Require the court to instruct jury members as to their power to override state statute and the judge in their determinations if they deem it appropriate.

4) Remove the filing fee in lines 57-58 for parents who request a jury trial in civil cases.  Innocent parents, including indigent ones, should not have to pay to receive substantive due process.

5) Require the unanimous opinion of 12 jurors to convict a parent of a crime and to terminate his/her parental rights.  Article 1, section 10 of the Utah state constitution foolishly empowers the state legislature to limit the number of jurors in non-capital cases.  Forever losing one's children is a fate worse than death.

She who must be obeyed: house monarchess Rebecca Lockart.

Bill Status: This bill was sent to Rebecca Lockhart's hand-picked house judiciary committee, which committee ultimately sent it back to her hand-picked house rules committee (8 yeas, 0 nays, 1 absent/not voting).  The house judiciary committee's last public meeting has now been held.  Barring any further action from the house floor, this bill will never be debated or voted on by the Utah "house of representatives".

Click here for status details.

Observations: As "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative," effectively demonstrates, the house speaker, Rebecca Lockhart, is a veritable monarch.  Among other inordinate powers, she alone appoints EVERY member of EVERY committee — without any required review or confirmation process.  Whatever Lockhart wants, Lockhart gets, and, in this case, her minions have sent HB 313 back to the rules committee to die an ignominious death.

Top

HB 27 adds a punishment, making this particular "offense" a class B misdemeanor.

On Feb. 4, this paragraph was amended unanimously by Rebecca Lockhart's hand-picked house judiciary committee, as follows:

"A person commits a threat of terrorism if the person threatens to commit any offense involving bodily injury, death, or substantial property damage, and... acts with intent to... cause [action of any nature by] an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies to take action due to the person's conduct posing a serious and substantial risk to the general public. A threat under this section may be express or implied." (see lines 30-31, 36, and 42-43).

They who must be obeyed: senate monarch Wayne Niederhauser and house monarchess Rebecca Lockart.

Bill Status: This bill was amended (see amendment), unanimously passed by Rebecca Lockhart's hand-picked house judiciary committee (9 yeas, 0 nays, 0 absent/not voting), unanimously passed the house final vote (71 yeas, 0 nays, 4 absent/not voting), passed Wayne Niederhauser's hand-picked senate judiciary, law enforcement, and criminal justice committee (4 yeas, 0 nays, 3 absent/not voting), unanimously passed the senate final vote (27 yeas, 0 nays, 2 absent/not voting), and was signed by outspokenly anti-gun governor Herbert.

Click here for status details.

Observations: As "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative," effectively demonstrates, the house speaker, in this case Rebecca Lockhart (district 64), and senate president, Wayne Niederhauser, are veritable monarchs.  Among other inordinate powers, they alone appoint EVERY member of EVERY committee — without any required review or confirmation process.  Bills live or die almost entirely upon their whims and wishes, and your "representative" and "senator" merely serve their will and agenda.

Top

Top

Bill Status: This bill flew through Rebecca Lockhart's hand-picked house judiciary committee (9 yeas, 0 nays, 0 absent/not voting), passed the house final vote (61 yeas, 13 nays, 3 absent/not voting), passed Wayne Niederhauser's hand-picked senate judiciary, law enforcement, and criminal justice committee (6 yeas, 1 nay, 0 absent/not voting), passed the senate final vote (24 yeas, 4 nays, 1 absent/not voting), and was signed by outspokenly anti-gun governor Herbert.

Click here for status details.

They who must be obeyed: senate monarch Wayne Niederhauser and house monarchess Rebecca Lockart.

Observations: In a "Republican"-dominated legislature, full of supposedly pro-gun "representatives" and "senators", why does a gun control bill like this fly through committee so early in the session?  There is a simple, yet disturbing answer.

Top

House sponsor, Dixon Pitcher

Senate sponsor, Curtis Bramble

House Bill 121 (Amended):

Legalizing Theft of Firearms [aka "Firearms Safe Harbor"] by representative Dixon Pitcher, district 10, "Republican".

 This bill legalizes theft by creating a not-so-voluntary program that empowers cohabitants to whimsically turn in other cohabitants' firearms to police — for an unlimited period of time.

Other cohabitants may never find out that their firearms were turned in to the police.  And anyone accused of having an "ownership interest" in an "illegal" firearm may essentially become an unwilling witness against himself in subsequent criminal prosecutions.

THE "OWNER COHABITANT" MESS

HB 121 creates the definition of an "owner cohabitant":

"'Owner cohabitant' means a cohabitant who owns, in whole or in part, a firearm." (line 52)

This "owner cohabitant" would be empowered to turn firearms in to police if he/she,

"…believes that another cohabitant is an immediate threat to… any... person."  (lines 61-66)

Though there is no penalty if they fail to do so, the police are to,

"…Require the owner cohabitant to sign a document attesting that the owner cohabitant has an ownership interest in the firearm…" (lines 73-74)

Wonder where these notions of communal ownership came from?

The phrases "owns in part" and "ownership interest" are vague and nebulous.  What about a household where two or more people share incomes and expenses?  Will the cohabitant turning in the firearms claim, "Well, he went to the store and bought it, but we share the bills and therefore the purchase was partly with MY money, so I'm part owner."

How might this apply to roommates in a dormitory or housing complex? What's to keep one roommate from taking the other roommate's guns and turning them into police for whatever reason he/she might conjure up? Could this be another part of the University of Utah's anti-gun agenda (see our threat assessment of HB 28 S1)?

UNACCOUNTABLE POLICE SUPPORTING THEFT

HB 121 empowers police to hold the firearms for 60 days (though, again, there is no penalty if they refuse to return them at all), whereupon the "owner cohabitant" can repeatedly and indefinitely request that they hold them for another 60 days (lines 75-85).

And what if the other cohabitant wants to know where his/her guns went, so that he can reclaim them?  Good luck!  According to lines 86-88:

"A law enforcement agency may not request or require that the owner cohabitant provide the name or other information of the cohabitant who poses an immediate threat or any other cohabitant."

What this means is that no one but the cohabitant who turned in the guns will know about the person he/she took them from.  If the other cohabitant somehow learns about what happened, he/she cannot reclaim those firearms until the 60-day period expires.

FORCING PEOPLE TO INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES

Once programs like HB 121 are in place, there is no limit on how they can be expanded to destroy your rights.

Another insidious part of this bill regards "illegal" firearms.  There is no provision to grant immunity for people who might turn in firearms that are "illegal" according to unchallenged and oppressive federal or state statutes, rulings, and presidential executive orders.

Under HB 121, "illegal" firearms will not be returned and those with an "ownership interest" may then face criminal charges.  Worse, by turning them in "voluntarily," and by admitting to have an "ownership interest," he/she would, in essence, be forced into being a witness against himself/herself in court.

FINAL THOUGHTS

We are unaware of any such concept as "joint ownership" or "part ownership" of a firearm in Utah.  As this is not a community property state (at least officially), the whole concept of "owner/cohabitant" is legally questionable.

If an owner and/or cohabitant wants to turn in his/her OWN gun, while it is stupid and potentially self-incriminating, that is one matter.  If a person is not a rightful owner, takes a gun that does not really belong to him/her, and turns it in to the police, that should be considered theft.  Theft should not be encouraged or rewarded by the police.

UT Gun Rights opposes HB 121, and the audacity of its supporters in the legislature for managing to defy so many traditional benchmarks of American jurisprudence in just a few short pages.

They who must be obeyed: senate monarch Wayne Niederhauser and house monarchess Rebecca Lockart.

Observations: In a "Republican"-dominated legislature, full of supposedly pro-gun "representatives" and "senators", why are a gun control bills like these so common?  There is a simple, yet disturbing answer.

Bill Status: This bill has passed Rebecca Lockhart's hand-picked house law enforcement and criminal justice committee (10 yeas, 0 nays, 1 absent/not voting), passed the final house vote (44 yeas, 28 nays, 3 absent/not voting), passed the senate final floor vote (21 yeas, 4 nays, 4 absent/not voting), and was signed by outspokenly anti-gun governor Herbert.

Click here for status details.

Top

They who must be obeyed: senate monarch Wayne Niederhauser and house monarchess Rebecca Lockart.

Observations: In a "Republican"-dominated legislature, full of supposedly pro-gun "representatives" and "senators", why are a gun control bills like these so common?  There is a simple, yet disturbing answer.

Top

House sponsor, Curtis Oda

Senate sponsor, Howard Stephenson

House Bill 256:

Gun Control by Bureaucrats [aka "Reauthorization of Administrative Rules"] by representative Curtis Oda, district 14, "Republican".

HB 256 reauthorizes numerous "administrative rules" created by unelected bureaucrats that have the same effect as state statute.  These include gun controls and many other affronts to your natural rights.

GUN CONTROL BY BUREAUCRATS

Did the Obama regime's recent executive orders targeting your gun rights get you a little upset?  Imagine how upset you would be if congress happily approved Obama's executive orders?

"Hey, I could learn a thing or two from you guys!"

Perhaps it would surprise you to learn that Obama isn't the only one passing orders and rules.  On the state level, unelected bureaucrats have been very busy:

"Approximately one half of Utah's codified law is written by state agencies."
(Source:  "Administrative Rules Affect You!" at http://www.rules.utah.gov/abtrules.htm)

Did you get the significance of that?  HALF OF UTAH'S CODIFIED STATUTES WERE WRITTEN BY PEOPLE OTHER THAN YOUR ELECTED STATE LEGISLATORS!

HB 256 reauthorizes state agencies to enforce gun control in the form of bureaucratically-generated "administrative rules."  These crafty concoctions circumvent the checks and balances that differentiate a republican form of government from a monarchy or oligarchy.

Did you ever learn much in school about this fourth branch of Utah state government?  Here's how it works in a nutshell: When the state legislature enacts a statute, bureaucrats get together and "interpret" how government agencies will apply those statutes in the real world.  Once approved, these "administrative rules" have the effect of state statute:

"A properly enacted administrative rule has the binding effect of law. Therefore, a rule affects our lives as much as a statute passed by the legislature, restricting individuals AND the agency that issues it."
(Source:  "Administrative Rules Affect You!" at http://www.rules.utah.gov/abtrules.htm)

The only effective check on these "administrative rules" is that the state legislature must annually approve or reject them, or a court must strike them down.  HB 256 would give blanket approval to ALL of these "administrative rules".

While we don't have a team of lawyers to spend thousands of hours sifting through these voluminous "administrative rules," here is a sampling to give you an idea of how they may subvert your natural rights.

...can prevent "spotlighting"

"SPOTLIGHTING" GUN OWNER ENTRAPMENT

According to state statute 23-13-2(41):

"'Spotlighting' means throwing or casting the rays of any spotlight, headlight, or other artificial light on any highway or in any field, woodland, or forest while having in possession a weapon by which protected wildlife may be killed."

This language is a vague and nebulous.  Theoretically, an open-carry camper with a flashlight, attempting to find his way to the outhouse, could be "spotlighting".

According to state statute 23-20-3(p) and 23-20-3(3), it is a Class B Misdemeanor to "use spotlighting to take protected wildlife".

Under "administrative rules," however, it expands beyond just "taking" protected wildlife.  According to "R657-11-14. Spotlighting":

"(1) Except as provided in Subsection (3):
(a) a person may not use or cast the rays of any spotlight, headlight, or other artificial light to locate protected wildlife while having in possession a firearm or other weapon or device that could be used to take or injure protected wildlife; and
(b) the use of a spotlight or other artificial light in a field, woodland, or forest where protected wildlife are generally found is prima facie evidence of attempting to locate protected wildlife. [bold added]
(2) The provisions of this section do not apply to:
(a) the use of the headlights of a motor vehicle or other artificial light in a usual manner where there is no attempt or intent to locate protected wildlife; or
(b) a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon in accordance with Title 53, Chapter 5, Part 7 of the Utah Code, provided the person is not utilizing the concealed weapon to hunt or take wildlife.
(3) The provisions of this section do not apply to the use of an artificial light when used by a trapper to…"

Wikiedia explains that "prima facie",

"…is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that – unless rebutted – would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact."

In other words, an open carry camper on his way to the outhouse is not only "spotlighting," but now must rebut the "evidence" that he is "spotlighting" — even if he did not kill, or attempt to kill, any animal.  This "administrative rule" makes that camper increasingly vulnerable to being detained, arrested, charged and convicted of "spotlighting," and having his/her firearms confiscated.

"The bureaucrats have spoken! Let there be gun control!"

DISARMING FOSTER PARENTS

According to "administrative rule," R501-12, adults must jump through intrusive hoops in order to qualify as a "foster parent":

"(5) Foster and Proctor parents who have firearms, ammunition, or other weapons shall assure that they are inaccessible to children at all times. Firearms and ammunition that are stored together shall be kept securely locked in security vaults or locked cases, not in glass fronted display cases. Firearms that are stored in display cases shall be rendered inoperable with trigger locks, bolts removed or other disabling methods. Ammunition for those firearms shall be kept securely locked in a separate location. This does not restrict constitutional or statutory rights regarding concealed weapons permits, pursuant to UCA 53-5-701 et seq."

In other words, adults who do not have a concealed carry "permit," and who do not have their weapon on their person, must essentially live in a disarmed, or unprepared, home environment.

CREATING ALLEGATIONS AGAINST GUN-OWNING PARENTS

And what about gun owners with children who have been seized by the state and put into those disarmed foster care homes?  Well, there's an administrative rule, R512-202-2, targeting them as well:

"(1) Qualification for Services.
(a) The Child and Family Services worker receiving or investigating a report of child abuse, neglect, or dependency shall categorize the information into an allegation category. Severe and chronic categories of abuse and neglect are found in Sections 62A-4a-101 and 62A-4a-1002. This rule contains the allegation categories that are not severe or chronic.
(2) Referral and Investigation Allegation Categories for Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency.
(a) Abuse:
(i) Child endangerment:
(A) Driving under the influence with children in the vehicle;
(B) Homes where there are lab paraphernalia, chemicals for manufacturing illegal drugs, access to illegal drugs, distribution of illegal drugs in the presence of a child, loaded weapons within the reach of the child, or exposure to pornography…" [bold added]

In other words, if your 17-year old minor child ever has access to a loaded weapon, a state caseworker could use that to build the case that you are guilty of "child endangerment," an abuser, and therefore subject to state intervention, potentially by having your child seized from you.

UT Gun Rights opposes HB 256, both for its gun control reauthorizations and on the general principle that bureaucratically-generated "rules" should never be given equal status to statute enacted through the full legislative process.

They who must be obeyed: senate monarch Wayne Niederhauser and house monarchess Rebecca Lockart.

Bill Status: This bill flew through Rebecca Lockhart's hand-picked house government operations committee (8 yeas, 0 nays, 1 absent/not voting), passed the final house floor vote (63 yeas, 8 nays, 4 absent/not voting), unanimously passed Wayne Niederhauser's hand-picked senate government operations and political subdivisions committee (4 yeas, 0 nays, 3 absent/not voting), unanimously passed the senate final floor vote with an insignificant amendment (26 yeas, 0 nays, 3 absent/not voting), passed the house concurrence vote (61 yeas, 9 nays, 5 absent/not voting), and was signed by outspokenly anti-gun governor Herbert.

Click here for status details.

Observations: In a "Republican"-dominated legislature, full of supposedly pro-gun "representatives" and "senators", why do gun control bills like this fly through, while good bills languish and die?  There is a simple, yet disturbing answer.

As "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative," effectively demonstrates, the house speaker, Rebecca Lockhart (district 64), and senate president, Wayne Niederhauser, are veritable monarchs.  Among other inordinate powers, each alone appoints EVERY member of EVERY committee — without any required review or confirmation process.  Because of the enormous power they wield, bills live or die based upon their whims and wishes.

Top

House sponsor, Paul Ray

Senate sponsor, Curtis Bramble

House Bill 268 S1:

Disorderly Bill Mess [aka "Disorderly Conduct Amendments] by representative Paul Ray, district 13, "Republican".

Did you strap on an AR-15 for a recent rally or hearing?  If HB 268 S1 passes today, you may be harassed and arrested if you attempt to do so again.

Currently, police have broad statutory latitude to harass gun owners in public situations.  HB 268 S1 is an attack on open carry, and makes things worse with regard to disorderly conduct statutes.  Lines 28-38 outline current statute:

"(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if:
(a) [he] the person refuses to comply with the lawful order of [the police] a law enforcement officer to move from a public place, or knowingly creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition, by any act which serves no legitimate purpose; or
(b) intending to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, [he] the person:
(i) engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous, or threatening behavior;
(ii) makes unreasonable noises in a public place;
(iii) makes unreasonable noises in a private place which can be heard in a public place; or
(iv) obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic." (lines 28-38)

"Have we got a deal for you gun owners!"

HB 268 S1 then adds the following "exclusion":

"(3) The mere carrying or possession of a holstered or encased firearm, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior or circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe the holstered or encased firearm was carried or possessed unlawfully or with criminal intent, does not constitute a violation of this section. For purposes of this subsection, a reasonable belief may not be based on a mistake of law." (lines 43-47)

This new language offers a phony protection that appears to actually increase the likelihood that gun owners will be abused.  Keep in mind that house monarchess Rebecca Lockhart, and senate monarch Wayne Niederhauser, control all of the legislative employees/attorneys who draft these bills (see house rule 1-3-102(1)(k) and senate rule 1-3-102(1)(a).

As "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative," effectively demonstrates, Lockhart and Niederhauser also exercise great power over "representatives" like HB 268 S1 sponsor, Paul Ray.  If they were motivated to protect gun owners, their attorneys would insert clear, concise language like the following:

"Carrying a firearm, in and of itself, does not constitute a hazardous or physically offensive condition."

In addition to clear language, there would be a clear penalty for police who blatantly harass such people.

Instead, they introduce nebulous phrases like "reasonable person" with belief in potential "criminal intent" — phrases that are historically abused by police agencies and prosecutors.  Gun owners always lose when statute is unclear.  What they really mean is that if you're carrying a gun around, you will be more vulnerable to harassment and prosecution under HB 268 S1.

HB 268 S1 proponents ignore the fact that this supposed "exclusion" does not exist if someone believes that carrying a firearm poses a "hazardous or physically offensive condition," or that "criminal intent" is not specified to only apply to this section of statute.

Paul "Benedict Arnold" Ray shows his true allegiance.

Whenever someone has a feeling of a "hazardous or physically offensive condition," and believes that gun owners are creating, or contributing to, that situation, HB 268 S1 will make it easier to harass and prosecute them.

Bill supporters also ignore the fact that the bill sponsor, "representative" Paul Ray, recently and candidly shared his gun control wishes with the Salt Lake Tribune:

"'If you decide to make a political statement and strap an AR-15 [rifle] on your back and go shopping, there is a very good likelihood you'll be cited for disorderly conduct,' Ray said. He said recent images of people at committee hearings on Utah's Capitol Hill with gun rights advocates propping rifles against chairs near children angered him and said his bill wouldn't protect people acting that way from facing disorderly conduct charges.  'I saw the picture — he had it sitting next to a child — which just irritates me,'" Ray said. [bold added]
Source: "House passes bill on openly carrying firearms," David Montero, Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 28 2013.

You've probably noticed by now that the "exclusion" Ray created above only applies to "holstered" or "encased" firearms.  What if you possess a firearm in any other condition in public?

Let's say you, like thousands of other Utahans, strapped on an AR-15 to peacefully attend a pro-gun rally or hearing at the state capitol?  Because the "exclusion" specifically excludes YOU, you are now singled out for extra police scrutiny and harassment.

Ready to live in a state where people like him are specifically targeted by legislators like Paul Ray for "disorderly conduct"?

Ray publicly admitted such again:

"Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield, sponsor of HB268, said if the bill had been law during last week's so-called 'Gun Day' at the Legislature, a man who brandished an assault rifle next to a child at a committee hearing could have been cited.

 "'This is a disorderly conduct bill. This bill is not about allowing people to open carry,'" Ray said." [bold added]
Source: "Gov. Gary Herbert says he doesn't like 'constitutional carry' bill," Lisa Riley Roche, Deseret News, Feb. 28 2013.

Ray's allegiance is not to innocent gun owners.  He is in favor of seeing them harassed and arrested for "disorderly conduct."

UT Gun Rights opposes HB 268 S1.

House sponsor, Keven Stratton

Senate sponsor, John Valentine.

House Bill 287 S1 (amended):

Hey, Let's Leave Gun Confiscation up to the Prosecutor! [aka "Return of Weapons Recovered by Law Enforcement"] by representative Keven Stratton, district 48, "Republican".

HB 287 S1 strengthens the ability of government confiscation zealots to seize and confiscate guns from innocent owners, and NEVER return them.  This bill is an outrageous attack on the American tradition that people are innocent until PROVEN guilty by a jury of their peers.

CURRENT CONFISCATION ABUSES

Current state statute 76-10-525 states the following:

76-10-525. Disposition of weapons after use for court purposes.
All police departments and/or sheriff's departments which have in their possession a weapon after it has been used for court purposes shall determine the true owner of the weapon and return it to him; however, if unable to determine the true owner of the weapon, or if the true owner is the person committing the crime for which the weapon was used as evidence, the department shall confiscate it and it shall revert to that agency for their use and/or disposal as the head of the department determines.

How could a government prosecutor ever go wrong with absolute power over your firearms?

Because no time limit is imposed, and no penalty is given, state and local statute enforcement agencies can take a very long time to return firearms seized from innocent gun owners.  And they often do.

In addition to police agencies, prosecuting attorneys get to arbitrarily keep your firearms from you.  Consider current statute in lines 36-38 from HB 287 S1:

"When the prosecuting attorney is informed or otherwise becomes aware that the property is not needed as evidence, the prosecuting attorney shall authorize release of the property to the owner." (lines 36-38)

Again, no time limit is imposed, and no penalty is given.  And it gets worse in lines 66-69:

"If the prosecuting attorney considers it necessary to retain control over the evidence, in anticipation of possible collateral attacks upon the judgment or for use in a potential prosecution, the prosecuting attorney may decline to authorize return of the property to the owner." [bold added]

In other words, rather than the government having the burden to show it is entitled to keep the property, instead the property is kept when the "...prosecutor considers it necessary..." under various nearly unlimited conditions as determined by the prosecutor — and not by a jury of your peers.

HB 287 S1 MAKES THINGS WORSE

HB 287 S1 repeals statute 76-10-525 above, but makes things even worse in the process.  The original bill at least proposed a 30-day limit for the police to return a firearm.  The substitute bill eliminates that time limit.

Under new language, weapon retention/disposal is accomplished "...pursuant to the agency's weapon disposal policy if..." certain conditions are met such as being unable to determine the legal owner (lines 43-49).  If none of these conditions are met (presumably the case where the owner is innocent) there is no requirement for the weapon to be returned.

A contrast is created in statute between property that is a weapon (lines 43-49) and property that is not a weapon (lines 39-41).  In the latter case the owner is explicitly required to be notified that the property is to be returned while in the former case no such notification requirement exists.

At least the existing statute states that police/sheriffs "...shall determine the true owner of the weapon and return it to him..."  But HB 287 S1 repeals this language.

A further sinister situation exists where the weapon is not legally required to be returned.  In this case the legislature places no restrictions on how the weapon may be disposed or retained other than it shall be disposed pursuant to the agency's disposal policy.

Does this allow the police chief or sheriff to add these firearms to his personal collection or sell them to fund boondoggle travel or attendance at "conferences"?  Even if the agency policy were acceptable, no penalty is imposed for failing to follow it.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

They who must be obeyed: senate monarch Wayne Niederhauser and house monarchess Rebecca Lockart.

UT Gun Rights opposes HB 287 S1.  In America, people are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty, and their means of defending themselves comprises a natural, inalienable right.  Once courtroom proceedings or investigations are complete involving a firearm and its owner has been convicted of no crime, it should immediately be returned.  If judges, prosecutors, or police fail to comply, they should be personally fined or criminally punished.

Observations: In a "Republican"-dominated legislature, full of supposedly pro-gun "representatives" and "senators", why are a gun control bills like these so common?  There is a simple, yet disturbing answer.

Bill Status: This bill passed Rebecca Lockhart's hand-picked house law enforcement and criminal justice committee (6 yeas, 0 nays, 5 absent/not voting), passed the house (73 yeas, 0 nays, 2 absent/not voting), passed Wayne Niederhauser's hand-picked senate judiciary, law enforcement, and criminal justice committee with insignificant amendments (6 yeas, 0 nays, 1 absent/not voting), passed the final senate floor vote (24 yeas, 0 nays, 5 absent/not voting), unanimously passed house floor vote to concur with the senate amendments (75 yeas, 0 nays, 0 absent/not voting), and was signed by outspokenly anti-gun governor Herbert.

Click here for status details.

Other views & opinions to compare and contrast: Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah.

They who must be obeyed: senate monarch Wayne Niederhauser and house monarchess Rebecca Lockart.

As "Rule By Monarchy: How the House Speaker Manipulates Your Representative," effectively demonstrates, the house speaker, Rebecca Lockhart (district 64), and senate president, Wayne Niederhauser, are veritable monarchs.  Among other inordinate powers, each alone appoints EVERY member of EVERY committee — without any required review or confirmation process.  Because of the enormous power they wield, bills live or die based upon their whims and wishes.