100 Most Recent Comments

See individual bills for more.

Cost to Taxpayers [by balootex on June 11, 2005]
about 2004 House Bill 146
There are a few problems with this bill. It basically forces cities and counties to pay UFRA (Utah Fire and Rescue Academy) for certification testing that is currently done, free of charge, through the federal system.

1. The bill requires wildland firefighters to “meet to certain minimum standards,” as determined by the state certification counsel.
• The certification counsel is made up of all structure firefighters that have no wildland experience.
• There is already a national standard in place that all wildland firefighters must adhere to. Known as the NWCG Standard (National Wildfire Coordinating Group), it “sets policies and standards for all United States Wildland Firefighters.”
• Policies and Standards are identical for both the Certification counsel and NWCG. However, NWCG does not require a fee to test or certify. The certification counsel requires a fee for each firefighter tested. County and City taxes will have to be raised to cover the testing. The Certification Counsel is also doubling the current cost of testing.
• State Certification will ONLY be recognized in the state of UT. While NWCG is a recognized national standard.
• On large fire incidents, that we have every year, is this law going to require firefighters from outside Utah to certify before they can work in the state? Or are their NWCG qualifications adequate to work here? If NWCG is adequate why raise Utah’s taxes to cover this totally unnecessary bill?
• All the money generated from the unneeded certification testing goes directly to UFRA, Part of UVSC (Utah Valley State College). And most, if not all of the Certification Counsel personnel work for UFRA (most as instructors for structure firefighting).

2. The second part of this bill that does not make sense is; it calls for counties to file an annual budget.
• Every county already has an annual budget.
• Every county fire warden is already limited buy their fire budget. What is the state talking about?

The problem with this bill is that it’s only purpose is to force both cities and counties to pay cash to UFRA for the testing and pay wages to their firefighters to take the tests (EVERY YEAR). Reminder: this certification has to be done through NWCG to be recognized nationally, which is free. Why should cities and counties have to pay and force firefighters to retest for UFRA?

I am against it, and EVERY firefighter I know is against it. Because it is all repetitious and costly, we (wildland firefighters) all believe it is a scheme to raise money for UFRA and nothing more. Please stop this now!

Reply New Comment View Thread

Admirable ideal, however flawed. [by jpickett on February 2, 2004]
about 2004 Senate Bill 36
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 View Thread