CFI’s legal honcho Nick Little gave me the link to Utah’s gun law.
(5) Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact, establish, or enforce any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.
(6) As used in this section:
(a) “firearm” has the same meaning as defined in Section 76-10-501; and
(b) “local authority or state entity” includes public school districts, public schools, and state institutions of higher education.
See that there? PUBLIC SCHOOLS and STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES are forbidden to restrict the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property in any way.
And if all these local authorities are forbidden to restrict the use of guns…doesn’t that mean people are allowed to shoot other people, pets, car windshields, windows, tires?
No, it doesn’t.
Murder, assault with a deadly weapon, vandalism, and similar criminal offenses are usually a matter of state law. Utah presumably has generally applicable state laws on these, rather than relying on each local authority to pass its own.
Screechy monkey is right about that, at least.
On the other hand, local governments are actively impinged upon when trying to deal with local conditions, like death threats tied to a specific event. And remember, this is the preference of the party that wants to limit the ability of the federal government to override state government, allegedly on the notion that local authorities are more able to properly assess a situation.
I’m still worried, because of this:
I am not a lawyer, so that may mean something other than what it seems to say. But if it means what it seems to say, that’s scary. I’ll grant you, any reasonable person would see that the intent of the legislature would almost certainly not be to decriminalize any and all use of a firearm. But that’s kind of what it says, and I’m not sure my usual policy of assuming people are basically reasonable until they demonstrate otherwise applies.
Screechymonkey already said it, but no. The purpose of the law is to consolidate all gun laws at the state level, and forbid political subdivisions from making their own laws. Lots of states have a law of this type. It’s commonly referred to as “preemption” by gun nuts, as in, “Do I have to check the local laws of every town I visit, or does this state have preemption?”
The state could, if it wished, declare campuses to be gun-free zones, just as they have already done for courthouses, churches (when posted), mental health or correctional facilities (when and as posted), or anywhere when intoxicated.
Shooting any of the people or things you mentioned is illegal. So is shooting: within 600 feet of any building that houses people or animals, without written permission of the owner; from any vehicle; from, upon or across any public highway; in park buildings, camp or picnic sites, boat ramps, beaches, golf courses, or overlooks.
We can deplore their gun laws, and call for them to be changed, without quite so much panic or hyperbole. “And in Utah, it’s OK to use kids for target practice!” No, no it’s not, and it doesn’t help our cause to say stuff like that.
That’s what’s completely outrageous about this law. Much as we may deplore any laws that authorize or encourage people to go around armed, it’s unconscionable that action can’t be taken in response to a specific, credible threat.
screechymonkey @1:
Hmmm… then could someone Yosemite Sam it by firing off into the air? Or never-mind firing, just strut around and watch people flee in terror.
Whoops, I’m already half-answered by A Masked Avenger @4. That still leaves strutting, though.
Now I feel obligated to look up the answer…
So yeah, licensed gun owners can carry openly or concealed, it makes no difference. Unlicensed gun owners cannot carry concealed, or in any vehicle, but they can carry openly on foot, as long as they must perform two separate actions before the gun can be fired. (Two actions would mean, for example, (1) drawing and (2) chambering a round, so basically they can carry a loaded gun as long as the chamber is empty.)
So if walking around with a gun on your hip constitutes “strutting,” then it’s perfectly legal. You can also carry a gun openly while literally strutting.
On the other hand, if by “strutting” you mean overtly menacing behavior, that is illegal. Utah does have a brandishing law, which makes it a class A misdemeanor to draw or otherwise display a firearm in an angry or threatening manner. If it goes beyond “manner,” and actual verbal threats are uttered, then the person is now committing assault (which legally refers to a threat of attack, not just the attack itself).
So anything you do beyond wearing the gun and looking smug is probably (technically, at least) a crime. Touching it, drawing it, gesturing angrily toward it, issuing threats, or even wiggling your hip with an angry expression, is potentially prosecutable. As to how vigorously those laws are enforced, I have no idea.
or use of firearms on either public or private property.
Interesting that it applies to private property as well. Where are the libertarians when you need them?
The law forbids any political unit smaller than the state from restricting guns, either on public or on private property. Not letting towns/counties/etc. impose restrictions is something libertarians will support.
dshetty@9,
The statute only “applies to private property” in the sense that it prevents a “local authority or state entity” from enacting regulations that would apply to private property. It doesn’t restrict an owner of private property from banning firearms from its home or business. So I suspect the libertarians are just fine with it.
Of course, some gun nuts are even opposed to private restrictions on firearms (“what! This restaurant won’t let me bring in my 12-gauge shotgun? Outrageous!”).
I believe that the Utah law against having sex when you’re not married* is still on the books, even though it is not enforced.
(* presumably they specified that both members are married, and to eachother)
Marcus @12,
Utah’s hardly alone in that. There are plenty of states that still have laws on the books that were either directly found unconstitutional or almost certainly would be (because similar laws in other states were struck down) if enforcement were to be attempted. Abortion laws that blatantly exceed Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, fornication and sodomy laws (which are probably all invalid after Lawrence v. Texas), etc.
Sometimes there’s a blatant political motive behind the failure to repeal (people hoping that Roe will get overturned and they can start enforcing their abortion law right away), other times it’s a sort of benign neglect (there’s no political reward for doing basic “clean-up work” in your state’s criminal code, and potentially exposure to attack ads claiming you “voted to legalize sodomy”). I think typically the way those things get fixed is as part of an overall project to fix a bunch of things.
I’m not a Utah lawyer, but I think this is a “pre-emption” statute. The state has apparently decided that firearms regulation is a matter for state law (i.e., enacted by state legislation), not local laws or administrative determinations by state or local agencies. The statute also provides that the state may authorize localities or agencies to regulate firearms, but forbids them from doing so without state legislative authorization. (I don’t know if Utah has authorized any local or agency firearms regulations.)
State pre-emption of a subject matter is not unusual, including state pre-emption of firearms regulations. For example, in some states (NY is one) a handgun license is issued by (or on behalf of) the state, based on eligibility requirements set by state law. Local governments may not require additional licenses or impose different eligibility requirements — unless they go to the state legislature and obtain authorization.
Thank you Masked Avenger! Especially for #8.
Note to self: never wear a gun while in costume. I’m also a belly dancer, so wiggling hips is something I often do in public.