Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah House passes disorderly-conduct changes aimed at limiting citations for lawful gun carry, 54-17
Summary
After hours of debate, the Utah House passed House Bill 2 76 to restrict charging people with disorderly conduct for lawfully carrying firearms; supporters said it prevents subjective citations, while opponents and several criminal-justice groups warned it could hinder prosecution.
The Utah House of Representatives on March 10 passed House Bill 2 76, a measure narrowing when officers can charge someone with disorderly conduct for carrying a firearm. The bill, sponsored by Representative Curtis Oda, passed on a 54-17 vote and now goes to the Senate for consideration.
Representative Curtis Oda, the bill sponsor, said the measure ‘‘isn’t about open or concealed. This is about protecting this citizen from, a- sometime some overreach at times,’’ arguing the state should preempt local action and protect lawful gun carriers from subjective citations. Oda repeatedly said the bill would not prevent officers from approaching or temporarily removing someone who acted threateningly.
Opponents raised prosecutorial and public-safety concerns. Representative Tanner, a critic, warned that ‘‘the display of a firearm is a form of speech’’ and said passing the bill would constrain authorities’ ability to respond to intimidating display. Representative Arendt told colleagues that ‘‘the law enforcement legislative committee, the Utah Council on Victims of Crime, and the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice all oppose this bill,’’ citing those organizations’ formal objections on record during the debate.
Lawmakers debated several factual scenarios during floor questions: officers approaching a person carrying a rifle in a public hearing, a wind-blown coat revealing a weapon, and a man carrying an automatic-style rifle in a mall. Supporters said officers would retain discretion to act if a person made threats or showed menacing conduct; Representative Oda said officers ‘‘can still talk to him’’ and observe behavior before deciding whether to charge.
Representative Hughes, who supported the bill, said it reaffirms statewide standards and prevents local jurisdictions from applying different rules, arguing that ‘‘if you are following the law…you should not be guilty of a misdemeanor or a citation.’’ Critics, including former prosecutors speaking on the floor, said the bill’s language made elements of a potential offense difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and risked excluding legitimate disorderly conduct charges.
The final vote followed extensive questioning and multiple members’ statements on public-safety trade-offs and prosecutorial feasibility. The House clerk recorded the bill as passing 54 yea and 17 nay; the measure will now be transmitted to the Utah Senate for further consideration.
