A Utah bill that would have allowed concealed carry in private venues that take public money has been extensively altered after local and national media drew attention to and raised concerns about its implications.
Despite the changes, HB452’s chief sponsor told the Deseret News the introduced bill still “preserves the core principle” of the law, “which is making sure concealed permit holders feel safe while they’re going downtown to different venues and activities.”
Why did the original bill gain national attention?
The original text of the legislation would have required private entities that receive $1 million or more in public funds to allow concealed carry on property the entity owns, leases or operates. This could have meant facilities like the Delta Center, which hosts Utah’s professional basketball and hockey teams, would have been required to lift its current ban on weapons of any kind.
House Majority Whip Candice B. Pierucci, R-Herriman, introduced the bill after a constituent voiced frustration to her about not being able to concealed carry at a sporting event. The concern “was the ability to carry while walking around downtown,” she said, “it never was the concern of bringing a gun into the arena for the purpose of safety while you’re sitting at your seat.”
She told the Deseret News that once a private entity accepts large amounts of taxpayer funds, it’s no longer operating as a “purely private” actor in the traditional sense, and therefore a balance should be struck.
Before modifications to the bill were made, Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz downplayed the bill due to its demand on private property owners.
“I believe the private property owners ought to be able to make those decisions on whether or not they want guns inside their facilities,” he told the Deseret News on Thursday, even if they receive large amounts of public funds. Schultz also doesn’t see HB452 as a Second Amendment issue.
But Pierucci, the bill’s chief sponsor, previously told The New York Times the legislation was created to “encourage a thoughtful conversation about whether entities that receive state funding should have the authority to limit constitutional rights, and under what circumstances.”
How did the bill change?
On Friday, the Deseret News learned of amendments to the bill that significantly altered its implications.
Instead of mandating that private entities allow concealed carry, the bill, if passed, would require firearm storage facilities at venues for people to leave their guns and retrieve them when leaving the event. Like a coat check, but for a gun.
Under the bill, private entities may still ban firearms, but if they do, they must provide secure handgun storage for concealed carry permit holders. The storage would need to be free of charge, secure and the entity would be responsible for the firearm while it is stored. The bill text notes that storage facilities can be offsite nearby if onsite storage isn’t feasible.
“I think it still strikes the balance of a concealed permit holder being able to exercise their Second Amendment right, and also being a responsible gun holder,” Pierucci said, “but also addresses concerns by private entities like the NBA not wanting to have guns in the building.”
The legislation says if an attendee leaves their firearm at the facility and it isn’t reclaimed within 24 hours, the entity must notify law enforcement, and the police are then responsible for retrieving it within five business days.