Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employer Firearm Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves substitute that limits employer bans on firearms in employee vehicles, with exemptions and procedures
Summary
A first-substitute to Senate Bill 78 passed after floor debate; the measure bars employers from banning firearms in employee vehicles on employer parking lots unless they provide alternative parking or secured storage, narrows punitive-damages exposure, and creates a federal-preemption exemption filed with the Attorney General.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Senate on March 2 approved a first substitute to Senate Bill 78, a compromise measure aimed at balancing employer parking-lot policies and employees' firearm rights during commutes.
Senator Mason, sponsor of the substitute, said the bill preserves an employee's ability to keep a firearm in a vehicle while allowing employers who wish to ban firearms on their property to provide reasonable alternatives such as free alternative parking or a secured, monitored locker where employees may check firearms before entering workplace property. "You can't have a policy that prohibits firearms in cars in parking lots unless you provide alternative parking for your employees that wish to have firearms in their cars or you provide a secured and monitored locker," the sponsor said.
The substitute narrows punitive-damages exposure so businesses would face punitive damages only in cases of serious bodily injury or death, or if the employer was put on notice by the Attorney General and continued to enforce a violating policy. The bill also creates a process for businesses subject to federal preemption to file a statement with the Attorney General citing the federal law and explaining why alternative parking or storage would be an undue burden; those filings would be treated as private if tied to homeland-security concerns.
Opponents warned the bill could be premature while related court matters and local policy debates remain unresolved. Senator Christensen and others noted longstanding opposition from public-health and local authorities in other debates; Senator Romero said employers who object could simply change their policies or employees could park on public streets. Senators pressed the sponsor on how the Attorney General would handle exemption filings and how an aggrieved employee would challenge an exemption, and the sponsor said such disputes would be resolved through litigation with private documents available for in-chambers review.
The Senate held a roll-call on the first substitute; the measure received 25 yeas, 3 nays and 1 absent and was placed at the bottom of the third-reading calendar.
