Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances bill protecting firearms kept in vehicles on certain parking lots after extended floor debate
Summary
S.B. 67, presented by Senator Madsen, would bar property‑owners from prohibiting individuals from keeping firearms in their vehicles when those vehicles are invited onto public parking lots, with limits and a defined 'secured lot' exception. The proposal prompted sustained questions about property rights, employer policies and residential exclusions; the bill was placed on the third‑reading calendar (recorded 24 yes, 3 no).
Senator Madsen, sponsor of S.B. 67, said the bill is intended to balance competing rights by protecting an individual’s ability to keep firearms in a vehicle parked on certain public parking lots. "It attempts to balance the rights of various parties when it comes to keeping firearms in vehicles that are parked in public parking lots," Madsen said.
Floor questions focused on whether residential property or an employer could exclude firearms, how long guns and handguns would be handled, and what constitutes a "secured lot." The sponsor said the bill references "public parking lots that are held open to the public" and offered to add clarifying language before third reading to ensure residential property was not covered. A definition read from the bill (Line 87 on the floor) described a secured lot as an area "secured by a fence or other physical barrier" with controlled access and an available monitored storage location or alternate parking.
Senators also asked about employer authority to dictate storage practices; sponsor responses emphasized that employers could adopt policies and provide secured storage, but the bill protects employees in many common parking circumstances. The sponsor said the firearm must be out of plain view, vehicle locked, and the bill allows employers to set reasonable storage rules.
After extended questioning and clarification on the record, the floor placed S.B. 67 at the bottom of the third‑reading calendar; the clerk recorded 24 yes votes, 3 nay votes and 2 absent on the placement vote. The sponsor said clarifying language would be considered between second and third reading.
Next steps: sponsor indicated intent to bring clarification amendments before third reading; the bill will return to the floor for final consideration.
