Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Innkeepers Firearms Liability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House rejects Innkeepers Rights Act after hours of debate on hotel firearms and liability
Summary
The House debated a bill to treat rented hotel rooms as temporary residences for firearms and to limit hotelier liability; after amendments and a lengthy floor debate the measure failed 22‑48.
Representative Sandstrom brought House Bill 223, the Innkeepers Rights Act, to the floor seeking to make a rented hotel room a "temporary residence" for firearms purposes and to add language shielding hoteliers from civil or criminal liability for actions by guests lawfully possessing firearms. He said the bill "brings the hotel innkeepers portion of the code in line with current state code" and called it "about protecting life."
Opponents argued the measure interfered with private property and business rights and flagged the broad liability immunity language. Representative Butterfield framed the central concern plainly: "So this bill will remove that property right from the hotel and business owner." Representative Derek Brown told colleagues he had heard hotel owners representing "tens of thousands of rooms" oppose the bill and described it as government intrusion into private transactions. Representative King and others questioned the amendment that would immunize hoteliers from liability, offering a historical hypothetical to underline the risks.
Supporters said the change simply recognizes that a rented room becomes a lodger's temporary residence under Utah code and that the measure narrows the location to the habitation room. Representative Sandstrom argued the bill "doesn't restrict take away that right" and that prior related liability language already exists in statute. Sponsors added amendments: one to define "accommodation" as the sleeping room and another addressing liability language; both amendments passed on the floor.
After extended debate touching on property‑rights principles, public‑safety concerns and the scope of immunity, the House voted. House Bill 223 received 22 yes votes and 48 no votes and therefore failed to pass and was filed. The debate included multiple calls for balancing the right to keep and bear arms with hoteliers' discretion to manage their businesses; several members urged defeat on grounds that the measure preempted private contractual decisions.
