*Update: The bill passed the Senate with the anti-gun language intact.*

It looks like Utah is about to get a little more anti-gun thanks to the NRA and some busybody legislators, pretending to be on our side. Preemption Bill (SB0115) has some language in it that concerns me, as being even more restrictive than current law. This legislation will make it even easier for local governments to pass ordinances restricting carry and in my opinion, will encourage them to do so.

Look for this bill to be passed into law, as the NRA is pushing it and it's already passed committee, and had Second Readers in the Senate.

Link To SB0115

In particular, the language that concerns me is as follows:

"78B-6-2302. Violation of legislative preemption -- Exceptions.261          (1) A local or state governmental entity or a venue contractor may not enact or enforce
262     a directive that violates legislative firearm preemption.
263          (2) This part does not prohibit the enactment or enforcement of a directive:
264          (a) by a law enforcement agency if the directive pertains to a firearm issued to or used
265     by a peace officer in the course of the peace officer's official duties;
266          (b) by a correctional facility or mental health facility under Section 76-8-311.3;
267          (c) of judicial administration if the directive establishes a secure courthouse;
268          (d) by the State Tax Commission if the directive establishes a secure area within a
269     State Tax Commission facility; or
270          (e) by a local or state governmental entity if the directive is developed in response to
271     and in accordance with legislative authority."

The bill defines directive as:

"78B-6-2301. Definitions.
239          As used in this part:
240          (1) "Directive" means an ordinance, regulation, measure, rule, enactment, order,
241     contractual requirement, or policy issued, enacted, or required by a local or state governmental
242     entity or a venue contractor."

I realize that some of these places are restricting carry now, but this bill takes it a step further and allows localities to pass anti-gun ordinances, instead of the buildings themselves restricting carry by rule. This will encourage counties to pass anti-gun ordinances restricting more buildings as off limits to carry and they will take advantage of the new law, pushing it to its limits as to what becomes off limits.

I also believe this will make all State Tax Commission facilities De facto off limits, by enumerating them specifically. They will take this as Carte Blanche authority to restrict carry.

Any way you cut it, this language adds more avenues for restrictions and is bad for lawful carriers. More places will becomes restricted to carry. It also has no carve outs for permit holders, or those exercising their right to permit-less carry.

This bill "strengthens" preemption by gutting preemption.

But I thought the NRA was our friend?

They sure do help the other side a lot.

I'd say it's a mixture of both. Some of the places are currently off-limits by rule, once this is signed into law, counties will be allowed to pass anti-gun ordinances restricting these places to carry, in addition to the rules they were already allowed to pass. (Not to mention the other endless list of restrictions this bill quite redundantly provides for.)

This bill defeats the very purpose of preemption.

I have no doubt that anti-gun counties will take "(e) by a local or state governmental entity if the directive is developed in response to271     and in accordance with legislative authority." to mean the very act of them passing an anti-gun ordinance is De facto "legislative authority" as mentioned in this bill. It will take endless lawsuits to ever get it sorted out and the left will judge shop until they get the result they want anyway. Local "governments" are the embodiment of nanny-state, in my opinion.

This bill passed the Senate with the anti-gun language intact.

If you're listening Utah, I'd start calling your Representatives in the House (and every Rep who will listen) and ask them to amend this bill in the House, to strip out the anti-carry language, or vote against this bill. If we can convince the House to alter the bill in any way, it will be sent to Conference Committee, which is the best hope for having the anti-gun language stripped out of the bill. My other suggestion is that we ask that this bill be amended to exempt permit holders from these "directives", though the better idea would be to have them removed.

A lot of public buildings are gonna become off-limits to carry, if we don't.

Yes…OP is reading into it wrong. There is nothing wrong will this bill

It would have to be approved at the state level. Seeing how this was a bill in direct response to Wilson’s bullshit i’d say it’s nothing.