Senator Jones,

First let me commend Utah's Legislature for placing sessions online, and more importantly in a podcast that I can subscribe to and listen to on my way to and from work. This speaks highly of our Legislature and opens the political process to the younger generation, and I thank you and the rest of the Legislature for it.

I have been listening to the Senate Floor Debates of 02/05/2008 and took particular interest in your comments on SB 67.

You stated: "If I own a business and I own the building and I own the parking then the rights of the gun owner would outweigh my rights as a property owner, correct?"

Senator Madsen addressed this in his response, but did not (in my opinion) address the root of argument, that being a Right of one person shouldn't infringe the Right of another, especially when it comes to the ability to defend oneself from injury or death.

You continued: "I feel like this strips so much power and authority away from the property owner. I just don't understand the purpose of this bill." (1) Isn't the property owner stripping the right of their employee/customer to be able to defend themself?

Let me try and explain my interpretation of the purpose of this bill. Based on my impression of your argument, you feel the property owner should be able to prohibit an employee or customer from bringing a weapon for the purpose of self-defense on their property. This seems fine on the surface, but upon closer inspection, this means an employee or customer must leave their means of self-defense at home and leaves them without that protection while traveling to and from work/their place of business. The property owner has effectively disarmed their employee/customer while on public property as well (which is a clear violation of State Law). (2) Should the private property owner's rights extend past their property in this manner?

Furthermore, you concluded that "The rights of the gun owner should not trump the rights of the property owner."

A recent tragedy illustrates my points:

Trolley Square has a policy prohibiting firearms on their property. It was one individual brought a concealed firearm on their property that was instrumental in ending a killing spree. He was an off-duty police officer that willfully violated the property owner's rights and posted notification by bringing his firearm onto their property.

Why weren't charges filed against him? Why wasn't he disciplined for violating private property rights? Because he's a cop and it's his job to protect us? Is that the responsibility of police officers?

(3) Are we going to hold law enforcement agencies responsible and liable for protection of the individual?

(4) Doesn't my "job" of husband and father require that I protect myself and my family should need arise? (Hopefully that need never does arise.)

Since courts have held that the police aren't responsible or liable for the protection of the individual, if a property owner removes my right and obligation to defend myself and my family, (5) are you advocating that you're going to hold the private property owner responsible and liable?

If so:

• (6) Would you be willing to introduce and support a bill that would require any private property owner having a policy prohibiting a means (or device) for self-defense (including, but not limited to firearms) be liable for any injury or death sustained where the employee/customer (or their surviving family) felt that absent said policy the employee/customer would have been able to defend themself (both while in transit to/from and while on said property)? (6a) If not, please explain why the property owner should not carry liability for their actions/policy.
• (7) Would you be willing to introduce and support a provision to such a bill requiring a private property owner to post a bond to cover any damages caused to any individual while in transit to/from and while on said property?
• (8) Would you be willing author and support an modification to the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America that would change the wording thereof to be "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed (except by private property owners)."? (8a) If not, upon which legal grounds do you base your contention that a property owner can infringe on the people's right to keep their arms?
• (9) We already require government agencies to provide secure storage facilities for their employees/"customers" for areas where firearms (and other self-defense weapons) are prohibited, why shouldn't private property owners be required to provide identical facilities when they make the same prohibitions?

I await your numbered responses to the several questions above.

With respect,

Joe Levi

If you liked this post, please be sure to subscribe to my RSS Feed.