Senate passes substitute House Bill 49, says mere possession of firearm alone not disorderly conduct

The Utah Senate on Wednesday approved third substitute House Bill 49, a measure that clarifies state law so that the lawful possession of a firearm — whether visible or concealed — is not, by itself, a basis for disorderly conduct.

Senator Bramble moved to uncircle and present the bill and explained that the measure ‘‘proclaims in statute that the mere carrying of a weapon does not in and of itself constitute disorderly conduct’’ while preserving law-enforcement encounters. The chamber voted to advance the bill; the presiding officer announced it received 22 yea votes, 4 nay votes and 3 absent.

Why it matters: Sponsors said the bill removes ambiguity that had led some law-abiding carriers to be charged with disorderly conduct based solely on possession. Senator Bramble said the language balances safety and constitutional rights and insisted the bill ‘‘makes a clear statement that, the otherwise lawful possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior, does not in and of itself constitute’’ disorderly conduct.

Sponsor’s explanation and policing carve-out: Bramble pointed to the bill’s text and noted specific language preserving police authority: ‘‘nothing in this section prohibits or limits a law enforcement officer’s ability to engage in a voluntary encounter with an individual,’’ meaning officers may still approach and speak with someone if there are other concerns. When asked whether an officer may approach someone about a concerned caller, the sponsor responded that lines preserving voluntary encounters allow officers to investigate without the bill restricting that ability.

Support and criticism in floor debate: Senator Thatcher said she filed a similar bill previously and urged colleagues to back the current substitute, arguing it ‘‘draws a clear line between that which is legal and that which is not’’ and eliminates a ‘‘large gray area’’ that left decisions dependent on the temperament of local jurisdictions. Senator Hilliard asked practical enforcement questions about worried citizens calling police; the sponsor replied that the bill requires additional threatening behavior beyond mere possession before disorderly conduct charges are appropriate.

Procedure and next steps: After the floor debate and the recorded tally, the presiding officer announced the bill will be placed on the third-reading calendar. No further action on the floor was recorded in this session before the Senate recessed for caucuses and adjourned.

Votes and record: The presiding officer announced the final result as 22 yeas, 4 nays and 3 absent. Recorded roll-call details in the transcript were limited to the announced totals; the Senate’s journal will contain the official roll call and individual member votes.

The measure’s immediate effect is procedural: placement for third reading. Any change in statutory language or effective date will depend on subsequent readings and any enrolled-paper actions required by the Legislature.