Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearm Attachments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to criminalize certain firearm rate-of-fire attachments; motion to advance fails after debate
Summary
A House committee debated House Bill 387, which would criminalize possession of device attachments that enable a semi-automatic firearm to function as a fully automatic weapon, but the measure did not pass out of committee.
House Bill 387, which would criminalize possession of certain firearm accessories defined by the sponsor as attachments that allow a semi-automatic firearm to function as fully automatic, failed to advance from the Public Utilities and Energy Committee after debate.
Representative Stoddard, the sponsor, said the bill closes a perceived loophole: existing Utah law already prohibits minors from possessing such attachments, and HB 387 would make possession by an adult a class B misdemeanor while retaining the existing juvenile penalty. Stoddard described devices such as "Glock switches" and bump-stock–type devices as public-safety concerns used in criminal activity and said the measure aligns with U.S. Supreme Court guidance that such accessories are not within Second Amendment protection.
Committee members raised legal and policy objections. Several members and public commenters pointed out that fully automatic firearms and some regulated attachments remain lawful under federal law when properly registered and that possession rules differ for items manufactured and registered prior to May 19, 1986. Witnesses, including Clark Kaposian of the Utah Shooting Sports Council and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, urged rejection, saying the bill would criminalize lawfully owned items and conflict with Utah’s existing firearm-protection statutes.
Public commenters spoke on both sides: Eagle Forum and others urged protection of constitutional rights; other commenters said regulation was appropriate for public safety. Representative Moss moved to pass the bill with a favorable recommendation; Representative Watkins offered a substitute motion to hold the bill. The substitute to hold the bill received two ayes and the remainder nays and therefore failed. The committee then voted on the motion to pass the bill; the chair ruled the motion failed after more members opposed than supported.
The committee took no final favorable action on the bill. The sponsor indicated he would continue working on the issue and seek further discussion in this or subsequent sessions.
