Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate approves bill limiting liability for employers on firearm possession in vehicles but carves out homeland‑security exemptions

Utah State Senate · March 3, 2009
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

First substitute SB78, protecting certain constitutionally guaranteed activities in private venues and setting rules for firearms in employee vehicles, passed 25–4 after floor amendment; senators added a narrow exemption for Department of Homeland Security‑designated facilities amid debate over security and reasonable accommodations.

The Senate passed the first substitute to Senate Bill 78, a measure addressing constitutionally guaranteed activities in certain private venues and establishing rules about firearms kept in vehicles on private property.

Senator Madsen described the bill as balancing employees’ expectation of privacy with employers’ property rights and said the bill allows employers to bar firearms in facilities but requires consideration of reasonable alternatives such as off‑site parking or checked storage. During floor debate, Senator Lillenquist moved an amendment to explicitly exempt Department of Homeland Security–designated chemical or critical facilities; the sponsor cautioned the Attorney General does not "grant" exemptions and that a de facto federal preemption exists, but senators pressed for clarity about undue‑burden standards.

Senator Romero supported the amendment as a narrow, reasonable carve‑out for heightened security sites. After debate and a roll‑call and voice votes, the amendment was adopted; the amended first substitute to SB78 passed 25–4 and was forwarded to the House.

What’s next: The bill as amended moves to the House. Floor debate centered on balancing federal preemption/ homeland‑security needs against employee accommodation duties; sponsors said the statute preserves ironclad federal exemptions while requiring employers to consider alternatives where feasible.