Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate backs Second Amendment and explores 'sanctuary state' options in nonbinding resolution
Summary
Senate Resolution 902 passed May 19, 2021, 22–6–1, expressing support for the right to keep and bear arms and opening consideration of mechanisms to protect state gun rights. Lawmakers debated what 'sanctuary state' would mean in practice and accepted a small friendly amendment before passage.
The Utah Senate passed Senate Resolution 902 (SR902) on May 19, 2021, a short, advisory measure expressing concern about potential federal actions affecting firearms and signaling the legislature’s intent to explore ways to protect Second Amendment rights at the state level.
Senator Vickers, sponsor of SR902, said Utahns value the Second Amendment and that the resolution is intended to tee up further discussion during the general session on ways the state could respond to federal action. He described several models that could be developed in follow-up legislation, including noncooperation with certain federal measures or limits on state enforcement of newly enacted federal rules. During debate Senator Davis pressed for clarity, asking "how do you envision and what is a sanctuary state?" and warning that an overly broad approach could have unintended public-safety or enforcement consequences.
Senator Maine offered a friendly, verbal amendment to adjust wording in line 35 (removing the word "greater" and substituting "better"); the amendment was accepted. Several senators noted legal limits—one member said federal law preempts state law and that sanctuary declarations have limited legal effect—while others said a statewide approach was preferable to disjointed county ordinances. Under suspension of the rules the Senate recorded a roll-call vote: SR902 passed with 22 yea votes, 6 nay votes and 1 absent. The President signed the resolution for enrollment.
SR902 is nonbinding and does not itself change statutory enforcement; it asks the legislature and executive-branch actors to consider options for protecting state residents’ firearm rights going forward and signals intent for further legislative work on the issue.
