ALAN CHOATE - Daily Herald | Posted: Thursday, February 22, 2007 11:00 pm
Senators debating a gun bill on Thursday agreed on at least one thing: It's a big deal.
The legislation would allow someone to have a gun in a vehicle while on someone else's property, even if the property owner otherwise bans firearms. It passed its first Senate vote 22-7. It must pass one more vote before going to the state House of Representatives.
The beneficiaries would be people "who want to have the means of self-protection" while driving to or from work or around town, said Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain and the bill's sponsor.
They would have to be able to possess a firearm legally. The gun would have to be out of sight and either inside a locked container or behind locked car doors.
"You would never be in a position where you would have to dump your means of self-protection in a ditch before you pulled into your parking stall and went to work," Madsen said.
Nor would people have to leave their guns at home because they weren't allowed to have them in an employee parking lot: "It is patently unfair to have an employment policy affect employees when they are far beyond the workplace, and make them vulnerable and impact their lives in this way."
There's another concern in this debate, other senators noted -- the rights of property owners.
Property owners currently can allow firearms on their property if they choose, said Sen. Ross Romero, D-Salt Lake City.
"This basically says to employers, private employers ... 'You have to allow guns on our properties,' " he said. "I just don't think that has any place compared against the property rights of the employer."
The Utah Legislature debated this subject in 2004, and there was a court case decided that year as well. Legislators and justices came down on the side of property owners having the right to restrict firearm possession.
Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, wondered if Madsen's bill chipped away at that right.
"I fear we are seeing what incrementalism can do to a long-standing agreement," Bell said. "This is a direct frontal assault on our policy.
"This is a big deal."
Madsen said his bill represented a compromise.
"Property rights are important. But property rights are not absolute and unlimited, and they have to be balanced," he said -- and people have private property rights within their vehicles, too.
"Without this, an employer can effectively disarm an individual," said Sen. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden. "I will not let my Second Amendment rights be encroached upon and taken away one more increment by an employer."
SB 78, Protection of Constitutionally Guaranteed Activities in Certain Private Venues, Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain
Prohibits a private property owner from banning legal firearms and religious items that are in a person's car.
This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A7.