Utah Votes

2004 Senate Bill 36

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Paula F. Julander on January 19, 2004, this bill creates a crime to the owner of a firearm when a minor obtains access to a firearm that was stored negligently and by discharging it causes death or bodily injury to himself or another person. This bill provides affirmative defenses to the alleged crime if: the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry to any premises by any person; if the firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure; the firearm is carried on the person or within a close proximity so that the person can readily retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person; the firearm is secured with a locking device; the person is authorized to possess a weapon and the minor obtains the firearm during, or incidental to, the performance of the person's duties; the minor obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person; or the person who keeps a firearm on a premise which is under the person's custody or control has no reasonable expectation that a minor is likely to be present on the premises. This bill also requires a licensed firearm dealer to provide written warning of possible prosecution and civil suit for negligent storage of a firearm and provides a criminal penalty to dealers who violate this requirement. This bill also creates a civil cause of action for negligent storage of a firearm and provides a statute of limitation.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Paula F. Julander on January 19, 2004. New Comment

1) Admirable ideal, however flawed. [by jpickett on February 2, 2004]
I am a constituent of Julander and agree it is tragic and unfortunate in any circumstance when a child is able to use a firearm or other lethal device either ignorantly or maliciously.

I have concerns about the current version of this proposed law however, especially regarding allowable defenses. Particularly with the usage and definition of "reasonable" as stated in the following passages:

(b) the firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location which a reasonable person would believe to be secure;

(g) the person who keeps a firearm on a premise which is under the person's custody or control has no reasonable expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances, that a minor is likely to be present on the premises.

"Reasonable" affords too wide a breadth for prosecutor interpretation and can be sorely misapplied to exclude what I consider reasonable expectations of secure firearm storage.

For instance, I recently purchase a firearm that I store with an empty magazine in its' case. I have a second, loaded magazine in the same gun case. Currently, I keep the firearm in a publicly accessible area of my home, unhidden. I do not have children and children rarely visit my home. They DO visit on occasion however. Is it reasonable that I should expect a minor to gain access to my firearm? I don't believe so given the infrequency of minor's at my home as well as the non-apparent, yet easily accessible location of my firearm. If, on the rare occasion a minor came to my house they snooped around and located the firearm, I would be astonished. However, I would also be guilty under this proposed bill.

A similar example could apply for those who are dating someone with a child. Although they may not bring the child most of the time, there may be an occasion where the child was there. It would be easy to make a case (as easy as not) that since you knew they had a child, it's reasonable they would be there, regardless if they had ever been there before or not.

I also have a personal bias against passing laws on issues that should be parental is education, application, and enforcement. While unfortunate circumstances surround the case of a 6 year old boy shooting a classmate in Michigan (http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/02/29/school.shooting.04/) I'm not convinced the owner of the handgun should be held liable for the boy gaining access to it. When the mother and child stayed with him briefly, I can't suppose the lock-down of his handgun (in a house where he is the only resident typically) would even cross his mind. Under the current version of this law, it is quite possible he would be.

While I support efforts to protect our children from firearm misuse and abuse, I also have grave concerns regarding ambiguity and lack of focus on parental responsibilities in the current version of this bill.

I cannot support it.
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

Capitol Building

Search legislation: