Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Firearms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves bill barring firearm confiscation during declared emergencies; debate centers on public-safety limits
Summary
The Utah Senate passed SB201, a bill that prevents government actors from confiscating or adding restrictions to legally owned firearms during declared emergencies and creates a civil remedy for violations. Supporters framed it as protecting constitutional rights after Katrina; opponents raised concerns about safety in government-controlled shelters and private venues.
The Utah Senate voted to pass Senate Bill 201 on Feb. 22, 2007, a measure that seeks to prevent state and local government actors from confiscating firearms or imposing new restrictions on lawful firearm possession during declared emergencies and to provide civil remedies for citizens whose rights are infringed.
Sponsor Senator Madsen said the bill is intended to 'freeze in place' the rights Utahns already hold so disasters cannot become a pretext for rollbacks. 'It just stops government entities from constricting gun rights, and especially specifically from confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens,' he said during remarks on the floor.
The bill drew substantive debate. Senator Dayton supported the legislation as a reaffirmation of Second Amendment protections, invoking historical warnings about confiscation. 'I think the bill sponsor here is exactly headed in the right direction,' Dayton said. By contrast, Senator Romero urged caution, noting the potential public-safety consequences if private venues or emergency shelters became places where many armed people congregate. 'I guess I'm concerned that this law also says that ... our governor and other governmental entities couldn't impose restrictions on the lawful possession, transfer, sale, storage, or display of firearms,' Romero said.
Senator Eastwood asked whether the bill would allow people to carry weapons into private or public refuge locations during local disasters; Madsen and other proponents answered that the bill does not expand rights — it preserves existing carry-authority for those already licensed — and that private property or government-controlled areas commandeered during an emergency would be treated differently. 'If it was government-controlled area ... then you would not be able to prohibit people from carrying their means of self protection with them,' the sponsor explained. Senators also discussed law-enforcement training and the challenges officers face distinguishing armed plainclothes people during chaotic incidents.
After debate and summation, the Senate considered SB201 under suspension of the rules and approved it on a roll-call vote, sending it to the House for further action. The clerk recorded 26 yes and 3 nay votes; the bill was referred to the House.
The bill text, as described on the floor, does not expand who may lawfully carry weapons; sponsors repeatedly said it prevents government actors from using an emergency declaration to impose additional restrictions or to confiscate weapons. Opponents cautioned about scenarios — such as crowded emergency shelters or private venues with many armed individuals — that could complicate public safety and law-enforcement response.
Next step: SB201 will be considered by the Utah House, where it may be amended; the Senate debate indicates the House can expect further discussion about limits on private property and public-safety exceptions.
