# HB 3009



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

https://le.utah.gov/~2020S3/bills/static/HB3009.html

It seems to me that it is my right to travel throughout the state and come and go as I please.
Otherwise it wouldn't be current going through legislation to make it law against it..... "again"

Backcountry, Thoughts?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Seems like the best answer is this is highly debatable and the legislature is now trying to define it more clearly directly in reaction to what it is seeing during this once in a lifetime event.

Emergency powers have existed for a long time and have been amended innumerable times at the federal, state and local level. The fact that we are watching the first remote session would imply that there are competing views on what those powers are and how people believe they should be delimited. 

I'm for limiting the duration and impact of such orders. I'm more conservative than people give me credit for, hence not critiquing the states voluntary requests to stay home. But a legislature attempting to pass a bill right now would tend to imply that your concept of a "right" is currently tenuous at best, ie no need to pass such a law if such a right was so clearly defined. But once again, its open for debate but requires more than quoting the constitution. Our national and state rights are significantly more complex than just a simple quote given we've had 200+ years of jurisprudence.

Wild and uncertain times. Plenty of opportunity for a citizen to influence bills and future directives. I will say again, I don't know what is best in this situation but I hope the legislature displays more wisdom than is often inherent in simple ideological reactions.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

For clarity, this bill appears to amend law to clarify that such restrictions are limited to local executives not health departments. I am more than willing to have that view corrected with evidence. I do my best to navigate the legalese of these bills but that is avocational, not professional. I bring that up as it implies your view of "rights" is not absolute if it can be regulated by someone at the local level, even if the level of such decisions is being amended.


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

There is sooo much that our constitution guarantees us that for me at least, it gets overwhelming. I like to keep it simple. That’s why I always argue the basic points.
Our men and women in uniform die to protect the constitution and the principals it was founded upon. I’m asking (indirectly) why would there ever be an exception to it regardless of how old it is...
I read something pertaining to the establishments and the legality of the constitution that was upheld right after the Civil War.... It clarified some things really well. Assuming it is correct. I’ll see if I can dig it up when more time allows.

I always say I “don’t have time”, that’s because when I get home from work I still have to be a husband and a father... Not because I’m procrastinating but, maybe that too.

Good news, I did get my new, still in the box Kodak “flex bow” tent delivered to my house a few days ago! 
I discovered last week my old spring bar has broken zippers.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I hope your new gear brings you joy.

I wish it was as simple as how we or others interpret the Constitition. It is a beautiful document but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. We have 200+ years of contentious history that informs it plus the fact that even "originalism" inherently requires interpretation, ie subjectivity. 

Something as inherently complex as liberty, rights and law will never be able to be boiled down to anything simple no matter what experts and pundits tell us. There will always be competing views of legal truth that can make arguments of why their view is correct. And human interpretation, often just a few individuals, will continue to rule the day.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I really want this bill to pass. 

I know backcountry has talked about these orders being a very small inconvenience, and if was only two weeks, I’d tend to agree. But even he acknowledges we may still be in this same condition this time next year. So who is to say that an non-elected county health official in Summit County telling me I can’t go on my planned family camping trip in June? Or an non-elected health official in Sevier County gets to wield such power over me to say I can’t come hunt if I draw my Monroe elk tag this fall a as nd am issued that privilege by the state? Or some county health official in Wasatch County telling me I can’t fish in their county for the year? Every day these stay in place is an addition to the inconvenience. And every day that inconvenience grows more and more. 

This bill attempts to balance public safety with keeping power where it belongs: with the people. I would really encourage anyone who expressed concerns with theses county health orders to contact their representatives and ask them to vote for this bill.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

God forbid this "stay at home" order or whatever you want to call it, stays in place for another month. I know business's that are the point of closing the doors FOREVER. Food industry is taking a hit as well. 


When do these people say kiss my A$$ and open back up? The legal system would be overwhelmed with massive amounts of misdemeanor appearances in front of a magistrate that the courts wouldn't be able to handle the overload. 


You cant keep a America hogtied, the people wont stand for it and I see that an uprising could begin. Be it local, state, or nationally.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> ...we may still be in this same condition this time next year. So who is to say that an non-elected county health official in Summit County telling me I can't go on my planned family camping trip in June? Or an non-elected health official in Sevier County gets to wield such power over me to say I can't come hunt if I draw my Monroe elk tag this fall a as nd am issued that privilege by the state? Or some county health official in Wasatch County telling me I can't fish in their county for the year? Every day these stay in place is an addition to the inconvenience. And every day that inconvenience grows more and more.


If we are still in the same condition this time next year as we are now, it won't matter. There will be nothing left for it to matter. Public infrastructure will crumble, resources depleted.

The difference between this and the Great Depression, is people were not suppressed at working by a run and hide mandate. Industry didn't have the capital to operate because of a run on banks when the stock market crashed. The high increase in unemployment filings will deplete those reserves for the ones who have made it the longest being employed. It will not take long before that avenue is gone and then what? More stimulus bills to quicken the effects for hyper-inflation?

Maybe its time to just see where the chips fall and open back up. The outcome certainly cannot be any worse...


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

High Desert Elk said:


> Maybe its time to just see where the chips fall and open back up. The outcome certainly cannot be any worse...


Oh, I think if you look at New York, you can see that the outcome can, indeed, be worse. But we are not New York, and we are not talking about a wholesale opening back up either, so both moot points.

The power wielded by these county health departments in this scenario is not proper. Even if the constitutional challenges are denied and the powers were upheld, I'd still say that is an abuse of power and it needs to change. The legislature is the only one capable of changing that. I heard back from my rep this morning that they are likely to amend the crap out of this bill and handle it point by point if they are able during the special session.

I reinforced my position that SOMETHING needs to happen to curb this unchecked power. If they do nothing, they will have failed. And I'm going fishing next week regardless. Cite me.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> And I'm going fishing next week regardless. Cite me.


Wasatch County?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Catherder said:


> Wasatch County?


Want to join me?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Vanilla said:


> Want to join me?


Hmmm, maybe, but I'm still working a lot of hours.

FWIW, they are finally done screwing around with the LoPro flows and it fished decently on Wednesday.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I contacted my Rep earlier this week and he says he agreed. I'm ok with either opening our public lands and resources to all or closing them to all. The Governor does have the ability to close them to out-of-state interests. 

Contact your Rep.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Vanilla said:


> High Desert Elk said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe its time to just see where the chips fall and open back up. The outcome certainly cannot be any worse...
> ...


I actually think moving the power to elected officials could make sense. I say that even knowing some of my county commissioners aren't people I respect in the least. But make no mistake, having elected officials make health related orders also could be problematic given how polluted our politics have become; the pressure to be reelected is immense and can bleed wise, difficult decisions out of existence.

I believe limiting the timeframe of such orders also makes sense. A year would be way to long as that wouldn't seem targeted or discreet enough. I would think an upper limit of 4-6 weeks would align with aiding a county fight something like a respiratory virus (one of the harder issues to fight) while balancing the impact on citizens.

Also to reiterate, given the other threads, my view was changed on who should be limited by public orders. Out of county residents makes biological and medical sense given how we manage healthcare in this country but seems problematic legally. It seems to me prohibiting everyone makes more sense to deal with both the ideal to reduce the viruses spread and navigate legal issues.

In this session I'm more concerned about the bill attempting to amend the Governor's powers. I think Herbert has shown a respectful amount of restraint and caution in exercising unilateral authority in the face of the pandemic. I'm not sure altering that power at the moment is very wise on the legislature's part. I don't trust the motivation behind that bill.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Packout said:


> I contacted my Rep earlier this week and he says he agreed. I'm ok with either opening our public lands and resources to all or closing them to all. The Governor does have the ability to close them to out-of-state interests. .


****EXACTLY****

-DallanC


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Here and elsewhere people keep drawing analogies between this virus and the Great Depression, they're not anywhere near the same event. Yes, people were actually kept inside eventually...they should have been issued an order but reporting on the virus was intentionally suppressed during the war. Eventually everyone was sick and the economic slowdown that happened was even worse.

But that happened before the Great Depression and in between the Spanish Flu and the Great Depression was a time of economic growth. You can get into a good deal of debate as to the complexity of the machine that caused the Great Depression but a major factor was overlending of money that didn't actually exist to people who were making a product that couldn't find a market.

(backcountry, I understand that smart guys really like going into the causes of the Great Depression and I do respect both your intelligence and opinion so don't rip me up over my oversimplification if you could, thanks.)


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)




----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Jedidiah said:


> Here and elsewhere people keep drawing analogies between this virus and the Great Depression, they're not anywhere near the same event. Yes, people were actually kept inside eventually...they should have been issued an order but reporting on the virus was intentionally suppressed during the war. Eventually everyone was sick and the economic slowdown that happened was even worse.
> 
> But that happened before the Great Depression and in between the Spanish Flu and the Great Depression was a time of economic growth. You can get into a good deal of debate as to the complexity of the machine that caused the Great Depression but a major factor was overlending of money that didn't actually exist to people who were making a product that couldn't find a market.
> 
> (backcountry, I understand that smart guys really like going into the causes of the Great Depression and I do respect both your intelligence and opinion so don't rip me up over my oversimplification if you could, thanks.)


I am anything but a "smart guy" when it comes to historical economics. I stay farther away from those conversations more than I do respiratory viruses.

I'm even fine hitting reset with goosefreak as long as the conversation doesn't turn into comparisons to the holocaust, gulags, etc. I do have a few unchecked bingo cards if it does though. I even bought the media deck to keep up with elk's tangential comments about the dos and don'ts of journalism in the era of pandemics. I've got a few juicy words on those I'm hoping to check off alongside "martial law".


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

"MARTIAL LAW" ???????????? If it did come to that, you better hold on to your britches!! I'm afraid that would create a Civil War type of fight.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

taxidermist said:


> "MARTIAL LAW" ???????????? If it did come to that, you better hold on to your britches!! I'm afraid that would create a Civil War type of fight.


It's a bingo word elk used a while ago in this issue. I don't see us getting to that point by any means as cooperation is pretty key to reducing disease transmission. As you highlighted, martial law tends to instill a different response.


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

backcountry said:


> Jedidiah said:
> 
> 
> > Here and elsewhere people keep drawing analogies between this virus and the Great Depression, they're not anywhere near the same event. Yes, people were actually kept inside eventually...they should have been issued an order but reporting on the virus was intentionally suppressed during the war. Eventually everyone was sick and the economic slowdown that happened was even worse.
> ...


 I most certainly can hit reset with anybody. I know I can get my panties all wadded up from time to time and it's best I just sit out for a few days.

That being said, I am particularly not too fond about the lines in this bill 90 through 107.

I am failing to see how this bill gives power back to the people, maybe somebody can enlighten me


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

From what I can tell the bill only redefines who can make such orders. It's just a redistribution of power but still allows an elected official to prohibit certain citizen behaviors.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> Oh, I think if you look at New York, you can see that the outcome can, indeed, be worse. But we are not New York, and we are not talking about a wholesale opening back up either, so both moot points.
> 
> I reinforced my position that SOMETHING needs to happen to curb this unchecked power. If they do nothing, they will have failed. And I'm going fishing next week regardless. Cite me.


The situation NYC is in comes from unchecked preventive measures early on. Couple that with two weeks of it and you have the situation NY is in.

Everywhere else isn't like NYC. All businesses could go back to 20 to 30 percent capacity and there likely wouldn't be any sudden jumps in anything.

I do like your plan on going fishing next week. Money well spent on a citation if you ask me.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

goosefreak said:


> That being said, I am particularly not too fond about the lines in this bill 90 through 107.
> 
> I am failing to see how this bill gives power back to the people, maybe somebody can enlighten me


Lines 90-107 are simply definitions. They don't do anything except tell us what terms mean in the code. What is it about the defining of those terms that you don't like?

And when elected officials are making the decision, they are subject to the people. They have accountability. If they do things contrary to the public good, they can be removed. No such thing for a non-elected health department official. They have no accountability to the people whatsoever.

While that does have the ability to get political, that's okay. That's how our society in this state and country are governed. Not by a sovereign individual party that gets to rule and dictate by edict with no accountability.


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> goosefreak said:
> 
> 
> > That being said, I am particularly not too fond about the lines in this bill 90 through 107.
> ...


Sorry it was a quick post. It's more like 104-120. Restricting my movement/property and enforcing it.. (paraphrasing)

I am an American, I am a free man! Life liberty and pursuit of happiness and property.
But we've already been down this road, I'm starting to gear my thinking more towards Kokanee and Turkeys at this time..


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I reached out to the sponsor and got clarification. This bill creates no new power. It simply defines the authority that already exists in other portions of state code. 

And then it restricts that existing power well beyond what it is currently. Right now it has no restriction, but this new language puts parameters in place.

And again, those lines from 104-120 are still merely definitions.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Vanilla said:


> *And when elected officials are making the decision, they are subject to the people. They have accountability. If they do things contrary to the public good, they can be removed. No such thing for a non-elected health department official. They have no accountability to the people whatsoever. *
> 
> While that does have the ability to get political, that's okay. That's how our society in this state and country are governed. Not by a sovereign individual party that gets to rule and dictate by edict with no accountability.


Exactly. Nothing worst than a bureaucrat occupying the space of an elected office.

That is why this nation is in such a mess right now, courtesy of Fauci and Brix...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

High Desert Elk said:


> Vanilla said:
> 
> 
> > *And when elected officials are making the decision, they are subject to the people. They have accountability. If they do things contrary to the public good, they can be removed. No such thing for a non-elected health department official. They have no accountability to the people whatsoever. *
> ...


Still laughing at the turn of events creating Fauci haters. Not funny laughing but sad laughter.

Trump is occupying the elected position and Fauci is in an advisory role. Trump ultimately makes the decisions as the executive and is actually an example of the preferred setup Vanilla described.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

backcountry said:


> Still laughing at the turn of events creating Fauci haters. Not funny laughing but sad laughter.
> 
> Trump is occupying the elected position and Fauci is in an advisory role. Trump ultimately makes the decisions as the executive and is actually an example of the preferred setup Vanilla described.


fauci is the one touting 18 months of little economic activity. fauci can't be fired by the American people at the poles.

Even though Trump sits in the elected position, fauci still has a lot to say and how things are done. fauci will make you afraid of everything if there is no vaccine.

*Definition of bureaucracy
1a: a body of non-elected government officials
b: an administrative policy-making group
2: government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority
3: a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation*

fauci sits somewhere as a member of 1, 2, or 3. He is a bureaucrat. Don't "hate" fauci, he's just clueless about how the real world works and is the very reason people are mandated to stay home...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

High Desert Elk said:


> Exactly. Nothing worst than a bureaucrat occupying the space of an elected office.


Back to the comment above, Fauci isn't occupying the space of an elected official. He's an advisor that doesn't have the authority to make policy. That's Trump's role.

If you dislike the Executive branch's response than the responsibility falls at Trump's feet, not Fauci or Brix. And Fauci has zero control in situations in which people are required to stay home given there is no federal order in place to do so (if there was, Trump is still responsible).

Nothing clueless about Fauci. He understands the real world which includes how a disease spreads through society.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

My opinion is Fauci occupies the exact space that he should. Elected officials should be the ultimate decision makers, but it is insanely unwise to not have experts surrounding those elected officials helping them make the best decisions possible. 

Fauci occupies the health and safety seat at the table. There are plenty advising the president on the economy in the discussion as well. Every expert should get their say, and then the elected make the decision based upon ALL of the information. That is how it should work. You’re seeing that play out in Utah on the state level. The health experts are present, but it’s always a governor’s order. He is ultimate responsible for it. 

Don’t get distracted by what the federal government is saying right now. The feds have done nothing. President Trump touted his “absolute authority” to open the economy, except he didn’t close any of it. The feds have not put any orders in place that need to be lifted. It’s all been on the local level. They are nothing but a distraction at this point when discussing that stuff. Even the president’s three part plan this week that they touted as groundbreaking...pffft! We did that weeks ago. You want to see how to operate in a crisis, look to Utah. Follow that model. You may not agree with every decision made, but that is the proper model.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

It's not too late to contact your senator and representative about the legislature fixing the issue with county health orders to ban recreation. 

There has been a whole ton of complaining about this on every online forum, I hope all those willing to post a complaint online are willing to contact their elected officials and state their feeling on the topic. These people are elected to represent us. If we aren't telling them how we feel, they can't effectively do so. 

HB3009 hit some snags last week due to serious misunderstandings with what it was doing. They will address this in some way this week I'm told. How might just depend on how willing you are to reach out and let them know what "we the people" expect.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> I really want this bill to pass.
> 
> ....
> This bill attempts to balance public safety with keeping power where it belongs: with the people. I would really encourage anyone who expressed concerns with theses county health orders to contact their representatives and ask them to vote for this bill.


I would rephrase that to "Encourage to read it and then call your representative." As much as I am for individual liberties and the limiting of government power this bill restructures and distributes the power to elected officials and away from beaurocrats. We can hold elected official accountable.



taxidermist said:


> God forbid this "stay at home" order or whatever you want to call it, stays in place for another month....
> 
> When do these people say kiss my A$$ and open back up?....
> 
> You cant keep a America hogtied, the people wont stand for it and I see that an uprising could begin. Be it local, state, or nationally.


We are seeing this already. Idaho is having a dang meltdown over the draconian reaction of their governor's lockdown order. Farmas can't operate but city golf courses are open. Moms getting arrested for being in the park with their kids?

What I see is a lack of common sense from all angles. NY and Burley are not the same and should not be managed the same.

I believe this whole thing is actually an over reaction turned social experiment.

We're all gonna die!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Seems like HB3009 is not going to move forward in its current form. I would still encourage people to reach out to their reps and let them know you want something done. 

The topic will likely resurface next month in another special session. This is something that has to get done. Think about the implications if a county decides this fall to implement a county health order similar to what many counties did recently, and say you can’t come hunt unless you’re a county resident? 

I’d like to think the state would step in and fix that, but they didn’t this time, and what good does the state fixing it after your hunting season is already over do? 

Be a part of the solution, or live with the problem. I guess those are the choices.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Vanilla said:


> Think about the implications if a county decides this fall to implement a county health order similar to what many counties did recently, and say you can't come hunt unless you're a county resident?


Universal gate key?










-DallanC


----------

