Gun rights don't trump property rights

What happens when the right to carry a gun collides with traditional Republican Party values like the sanctity of private property and the preference for local control compared to control by a central government? The surprising answer in Utah is that gun rights win. There is perhaps no better illustration than the recent passage of SB48 by the Utah Legislature. That bill was designed to prevent the University of Utah and other state universities and colleges from regulating the possession of guns on campus.

It was passed over the opposition of the trustees, faculty, administration, staff, students and alumni association of the university. SB48 is yet another extension of earlier legislation that prohibited local governments from regulating concealed weapons in places like government buildings, libraries and parks. The Legislature's stated justification for banning local control is the need for uniformity — the same rationale used to support federal control over some state functions, like education. But although Republicans give lip service to the superiority of local control where the federal government is concerned, the principle is quickly jettisoned when applied to the relationship of the state to its counties, cities, school districts and universities — particularly in matters relating to firearms.

An even more striking difference between theoretical Republicanism and actual practice can be seen in the willingness of Republican lawmakers to elevate gun rights over private property rights. Again SB48 provides an interesting illustration of this principle. The sponsor of the bill was Senator Michael Waddoups, the Republican majority leader. His original bill, which was passed by the Senate attempted to give gun owners absolute rights over the interests of other persons: "(P)rivate citizens may not inhibit or restrict the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property." The Senate rejected an amendment which would have made clear the superiority of private property over gun rights. Ultimately the Legislature adopted ambiguous language which leaves unresolved the relationship of gun rights to private property rights. In so doing, it showed its willingness to pander to the gun lobby at the expense of private property owners.

SB48 is one in a long line of bills passed by the Utah legislature which seem to state that owners of non-residential private property cannot prevent concealed weapons from being brought on to their premises. The doctrine that Republican legislators appear to have adopted is that gun rights trump private property rights.

But perhaps the most startling characteristic of the current crop of Republican lawmakers is their willingness to experiment with the safety of society by allowing guns to be carried nearly everywhere. Again, SB48 illustrates this principle. It prevents state colleges and universities from banning guns in such places as dormitories, classrooms, tenure hearings, public forums, political demonstrations and sporting events. This radical step was taken without any evidence that the arming of the university community was necessary or even safe.

The University of Utah, like Utah's other colleges and universities, has until now had few problems with violent crime. The Republican response to a violence-free environment is to replace it with one in which guns can be brought on campus, virtually without restriction. The old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" has been replaced with the new Republican doctrine of the gun: loosen restrictions until somebody gets hurt. We can only hope the only casualty of this social experiment will be Republican control of the Utah Legislature.

---

Steven H. Gunn is a former Republican legislative district chairman and a current member of the board of directors of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah.