Utah: "Senate's Measure Allowing Guns on Campuses Sails Through the House"

[cuchulainn]

Hey, Kirsten, your bias is hanging way out in that lede.

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Feb/02272003/utah/33304.asp

Senate's Measure Allowing Guns on Campuses Sails Through the House

BY KIRSTEN STEWART
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

A day after banning candy and soft drinks from elementary school vending machines, the House passed a bill to allow gun-toting concealed weapon permit-holders onto school grounds.
The 56-15 stamp of approval came despite resistance from Democrats who once again tried and failed to introduce a substitute bill banning most loaded weapons from schools.
Senate Bill 108 needs only the Senate's consent on a House amendment and the governor's signature before becoming law.
Any reservations Republican House members had Wednesday were solved by an amendment to a provision in the bill that makes it easier for churches to ban guns.
Under the amendment, sponsored by Rep. Michael Styler, R-Delta, church weapons bans have to be renewed annually as opposed to every five years as allowed in the Senate version. Churches also must post notice of their policy on the State Bureau of Criminal Investigation Web site.
Drafted at the behest of the Statewide Prosecutors Association, the bill does nothing but clarify conflicts in Utah's gun laws, Styler said.
It repeals a law that bars "dangerous" weapons from schools and reinforces a statute that says concealed weapon permit-holders can carry their weapons "without restriction" except in large airports, prisons, jails and courtrooms.
Styler noted the measure is backed by the Utah Shooting Sports Council, law enforcement and the Commission on Juvenile Justice.
But it is opposed by many parents, noted Rep. Carol Spackman Moss, D-Holladay. "I've never had a parent call me and say, 'I'd like to see concealed weapons permit-holders to be allowed to carry their guns into schools,' " she said. "We should think about who we represent, the parents of Utah's children or special interests."
Rep. Pat Jones, D-Holladay, asked for help understanding why guns are OK at schools but not churches.
Rep. Judy Ann Buffmire, D-Millcreek, proposed a substitute bill that still would have exempted police, reserve officers and others from gun-free school zones. Modeled after a similar substitute that failed in the Senate, it also would have allowed gun-toting parents to drop their kids off at schools.
The proposal was trounced 51-17.
No one is advocating guns be brought to classrooms, said Rep. Bradley Johnson, R-Aurora. But until schools can guarantee "bad guys" will comply with the law, he asked, why should law-abiding citizens be penalized?

 

[Blackhawk]

No one is advocating guns be brought to classrooms, said Rep. Bradley Johnson, R-Aurora. But until schools can guarantee "bad guys" will comply with the law, he asked, why should law-abiding citizens be penalized?

Exactly!

Replace "schools" with "government" in that last sentence, and it pretty much nails the whole RKBA reason for being, doesn't it?

Fact is, the Founding Fathers rrealized that "bad guys" cannot ever be made to comply with the law, hence the 2A.

 

[TheOtherOne]

THIS IS GUN CONTROL!

It's funny how gun control bills can be presented. Believe it or not, this bill is going to make it worse for CCW holders in Utah.

There is an amendment to this bill that allows private property owners and churches to legally bar CCW holders from carrying a gun. As it stands now, it is not illegal for a CCW holder to carry a gun anywhere (even a school) except a secure part of an airport, courtroom or jail. With the passing of this bill it will be illegal to carry on any church or private property grounds where they post notice at the entrance and on the states website.

GUN CONTROL COMES IN MANY GUISES

 

[tetchaje1]

TheOtherOne,
I am all for the bill as it was originally drafted -- especially considering that I am a student at the University of Utah and I carry there every day.

I think that with the Amendment to the church gun-control amendment, stating that the ban on church property (i.e. private property) must be reviewed and renewed annually and posted on the BCI website, will prove to be more hassle than it is worth for most people and churches.

Besides, I don't have a problem with people who want to be defenseless on their own private property. It is their property and they can do with it as they please.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Yeah, but it's not illegal for those with a CCW to carry on school grounds right now. This bill is not needed.

And right now all that any church or private place can do is kick you off for trespassing, you can't get in legal trouble for having your gun.


With it being private poperty, doesn't this mean it could extend to places like the Delta Center also?

The Delta Center posts all kinds of signs and even has people at the door saying "No knives or guns"... but it's not illegal so I carry to basketball games and events there anyways. Now that churches and private property owners can ban us, it will be illegal if they go through the trouble of banning us in accordance with this bill and thus we can lose our permit if we choose to carry.

 

[tetchaje1]

TheOtherOne,
I agree with you that the amendment sux.

What I was saying is that I supported the original bill -- that clarified the CC law to make it very clear that school campus carry was legal.

The amendment was tacked on to the bill at the last second by an eager-beaver rep. (I can't remember which one) even though it was going to pass without it.

Isn't there something in the law that states that private property in which the owners are expecting the general public to come have to allow CHL holders? Hence, WalMart could not ban CC because by very nature of their store, they are opening themselves up to the general public. IMO, the Delta Center would be the same way.