H.B. 534 Firearm Immunity Amendments

What this bill does

This bill would give state and local government entities the same legal immunity from liability that private property owners already have when a person lawfully carrying a firearm on their property discharges it, unless the government directed the discharge. The immunity would protect the government entity, not the individual who fired the weapon.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 11 yes, 0 no, 1 absentHouse Public Utilities and Energy Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 18, 2026Who voted how
• 60 yes, 1 no, 14 absentFinal House vote · Feb 24, 2026Who voted how
• 3 yes, 1 no, 3 absentSenate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 27, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Feb 18, 2026 House Public Utilities and Energy Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (34 turns)

  1. Chair Jack (presiding)53:58

     All right. Well then, we'll inve invite Representative Ivory up to the, up to the stand to talk to us about HB 5 34 firearm immunity amendments.

  2. Rep. Ken Ivory54:12

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I didn't realize I needed to sing and dance my way in to be more conspicuous, but, uh, I'll work On that. Well, now you, now that you offer that, I think that's a, I think you've set the bar I'd, uh, I'd defer to my wife on that one. This is a super simple bill. Um, under, uh, Utah Cove 53 5 A 1 0 3, we, uh, we allowed private property owners that allowed people to have their firearms on private property to be a, to have immunity if there was any kind of a discharge of the firearm unless they directed it. And so, private property owners have, have immunity. Mr. Chair, I gotta hand out if, if you don't mind it just, it's basic explanation. But Yeah, go ahead. But super simple. We already did that with private property owners, and all this bill does is it provides the same incentive to, to public to the state and subdivisions. They're, they're already under law supposed to allow that, but this just provides the incentive that if they allow it, they have immunity unless they direct somebody to discharge the firearm. And like to give time to our good former representative, uh, Kurt ota, who was our firearms expert the whole time I, that he was in the house with me to, to, uh, to explain a little bit better than I did.

  3. Chair Jack (presiding)55:32

     Thank you, Representative. All right, go ahead. Thank you. Representative Ivory. Can you Yeah, just get closer.

  4. Rep. Ken Ivory55:38

     It's on. Yeah, just get closer. It's on. Okay. Alright. Uh, thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. Uh, this bill it, for many years we've always looked at, uh, penalizing people that, that break the law. Well, what we're trying to do here is to incentivize them to not break the law, get ahead of it, so that way, uh, if we give them immunity, they're gonna look at that and say, well, if we, if we, uh, start banning or restricting, we our, uh, you know, lawsuit, immunities may go away. So this is this, I'm looking at an incentive rather than a punishment. So it's just a simple clarification that, uh, you carry a firearm, you're not liable unless you instruct them to discharge it. And that's the whole bill. Happy to answer any questions.

  5. Chair Jack (presiding)56:38

     Okay. Let's see. Uh, Representative Moss,

  6. Rep. Sandra Hollins56:45

     Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, representative. I mean, it, it may be simple to you, but it's not really to me because I'm not accustomed to, um, people carrying guns on private property or in this case, um, this is government owned property. Can you just give me an example? Just gimme a hypothetical of something that Yeah,

  7. Rep. Ken Ivory57:05

     You bet. There's been some real examples. Uh, I think Mr. Oda can speak to that.

  8. Curtis Oda, former state representative57:11

     Well, let's look at, um, uh, here's an easy one. Down in St. George, a lot of times they've, uh, uh, restricted or banned firearms on the walking trails. Well, it's illegal for them to do so because our state constitution and our statutes, uh, re prohibits cities and counties from making any laws or regulations having to do with firearms. Only the legislature has that authority. Uh, the only, the only thing that we've given to cities is the ability to restrict, uh, discharge of firearms within city limits. Uh, as long as it's not, uh, uh, for other lawful purposes like self-defense. So that, that's one instance. Uh, uh, another would be, um, well, for that matter, let, let's just take the ca Capitol Hill here. If, uh, if the, if the security decided, hey, we're, we're not gonna allow any firearms on the premises, that would be illegal for them to do so. So if, but if, uh, if a, if the firearm discharges, okay, um, let's say my firearm discharges, unless the security instructed me to, they'd be, they would be immune.

  9. Rep. Carol S. Moss58:34

     Well, what would cause it to discharge?

  10. Curtis Oda, former state representative58:38

      Well, it could be an accident. Uh, you know, uh, I'm not, uh, reckless with, with my firearm. But, uh, you know, hopefully no one else is either. Uh, things do happen at times, but, uh, uh, you know, we, we, we want to make sure that those who did not, um, involve themselves in directing the discharge or, or demanding it or assisting that they're not held responsible. And I could give you an example on that representative. So a few years ago, I mean, it's not government property, but in Trolley Square there was a situation where an off-duty, uh, law enforcement officer, there was a, a, a situation. And, and that officer responded, and again, off duty, but saved a lot of lives. And so if someone were on the capitol grounds and, and did that, then the, and, and when people sue, they sue everyone and they sue anyone with deep pockets speaking as a lawyer that is, hasn't done that. But, um, but this way it, it, it just ensures the government legally has immunity unless they actually told the person to you go fire that firearm. So even if it put others at risk, if it went off accidentally, they'd be immune from prosecution. Is that what You says? YY So yeah. Not the person that, that discharged the firearm or anyone that acted to do that, but but the government, just for being here as a building, the government would have immunity.

  11. Rep. Carol S. Moss1:00:12

      Okay. Thank you. So if, if I were to ask a, try to try to put this in my own words, then, so, 'cause this, this goes to private property owners in, in the handout. So, well, we already did that for private property owners, so that we Did this for pri. So, okay. So this now extends it to government property. Exactly. Alright. So, so then in, in your example here at the Capitol, uh, we as the state, have allowed people to carry firearms here. And, and as, as we pointed out, firearms don't just discharge on their own. They only discharge when somebody's finger is on the trigger and they pull it maybe negligently or maybe in some other use. So the person who pulled the trigger, this doesn't give them immunity. This would just provide immunity to whatever state entity allowed firearms on their property, correct?

  12. Rep. Ken Ivory1:01:17

      Yeah, that's correct. And what we've seen, we've seen across the country, we've seen people sue the, the firearm manufacturer. We, we've seen them sue, you know, everybody that might have any connection with an incident. And this just protects the government that says, look, you know, our constitution protects our right to defend ourselves. Article one, section one, people have inherent right to enjoy and defend their lives and liberties. Article one, section six, right, of the people to keep in bear arms for security, defense of self, family, others, property or the state or other lawful purposes shall not be infringed. And I mean, that's in our constitution. So it just simply says, you know, the fact that you're a government building and someone's in that government building or property, you can't hold the government liable. So it could be state, city, county. That's right.

  13. Chair Jack (presiding)1:02:11

      All right. I've got some more questions.

  14. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck1:02:13

      Let's go to Representative Peck. Oh my Life. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm thinking of a scenario. I have a, a little scenario I'd like to share with you, and then if you could just answer the question after that. So let's say I had some medication of some sort. Let's say that the color of the medication was blue. 'cause that could be fun. And let's say I'm colorblind. Don't get too crazy With me. Okay. Sorry. All right. So anyway, and let's say I'm walking around the capitol and um, and I had that medication in my pocket and it happened to, I pulled out my badge to get through a door. The me medication came outta my pocket, it fell on the floor. Let's say somebody like maybe one of our Senator Vickers dogs or like, uh, a child of one of our reps or whatever. Wow. My hair's kind of crazy. I just noticed it's windy outside. Anyway, so let's say, let's say that they, um, that they just saw that little pill on the floor because it's blue and it looks fun and they lick it up and they eat it, and they have an adverse effect. 'cause they're a child or a dog. Okay, let's just say that happens right now, if that were to happen with a medication, should the government be held accountable because it was at the Capitol? And could the government be held accountable because it was at the Capitol? I, I, I have no idea. But this only pertains to the use of firearms. So, Okay. Well, I appreciate that, but I'm, I guess I'm saying that we have this pill that could hurt, possibly kill a person, right? Yeah. It fell out of their pocket. And the same thing would go with like a firearm. I would think the person who had the pill would be held accountable for if they drop the pill.

  15. Rep. Ken Ivory1:03:52

      Sure. Right. It shouldn't be the government. No, that's right. And the same would go for a firearm. I think people just care more about firearms because they're so politically charged. But at the, at the end of the day, we could be talking about anything. We could be talking about a razor blade. We could be talking about a pill, we could be talking about anything. The principle that I think you're bringing up here is the government should not be held accountable for other people's decisions. That's Right. That's right. But Lawsuit, lawsuit, lawsuits, hits everyone that in, in that per, uh, parameter. So, you know, the, the, the property owner, uh, tenants, uh, uh, even somebody that, that might have been standing right close to that person, uh, you know, that that person should be responsible for being careless with, with that pill. Uh, right. You know, not anybody else that, uh, didn't have anything to do with that.

  16. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck1:04:41

      Thank You. You confused me with the blue. If it were a gray pill, I could have answered that question like that.

  17. Chair Jack (presiding)1:04:47

      Yeah. All right. Let's go to Representative Albrecht.

  18. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht1:04:51

      Thanks, Mr. Chair. Uh, so this would apply not only on the capitol, but down at the DNR building or the driver's license building or the social service building in Richfield, or, right. Yeah. Right. That's right. Okay. So I'm sure, uh, well, I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Mr.

  19. Chair Jack (presiding)1:05:11

      Alright, thank you. All right. I'm pausing. I see no other comments from the committee. We'll open this up to public comment. Is there anyone in the room who would like to speak to this bill? I see no hands. Anybody online. Wow. You drew the long straw today. There we go. All right. So we'll then bring it back to the c we'll close public comment and we'll bring it back to the committee for action. For any motion somebody would make, uh, Representative Peck.

  20. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck1:05:51

      Thank you. Is there a sub or anything, or we're just to, uh, the main, Yeah, just the main. I, I don't, I don't see any subs online, so I guess it's just, okay. HB 5 34. Great. I move that we favorably recommend HB 5 34 out of this committee.

  21. Chair Jack (presiding)1:06:09

      Okay. So the motion, if I were to restate that, is to pass out with a favorable recommendation, HB 5 34 firearm immunity amendments. Any comments to that motion?

  22. Chair Jack (presiding)1:06:24

      Then we'll bring it back to the sponsor, if you have any final words you want

  23. Rep. Ken Ivory1:06:29

      to say on this bill. Yeah, Just article one, section six of the Constitution says, the legislature defines the lawful use of firearms, and that's what we're doing here, making sure that people have the lawful use and there aren't, they aren't infringed in that, and government's not liable for the use of, you know, that people do on government property.

  24. Chair Jack (presiding)1:06:53

      Okay. Thank you. Then back to the maker of the motion for any comments.

  25. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck1:06:57

      Uh, I think the comment I would make is this is a super principled common sense Bill. I, I appreciate it. Thank you.

  26. Chair Jack (presiding)1:07:04

      All right. Thank you. Then before we vote, I'll restate the motion. It, it is to pass out with a favorable recommendation, HB 5 34 firearm immunity amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Alright, chair rules. That, that passes unanimously. Alright.

  27. Rep. Nicholeen P. Peck1:07:24

      Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

  28. Chair Jack (presiding)1:07:25

      Thank you. Okay. Okay. We have a comment from Representative Shelley. Thank you.

  29. Rep. Troy Shelley1:07:31

      Would that be one that would be well, to be on consent? No, Probably not. Okay. No.

  30. Chair Jack (presiding)1:07:38

      Okay. All right. Thank you, Representative Ivory.

  31. Chair Jack (presiding)1:07:56

      So, uh, that concludes our bill hearing for this morning. Um, so I would entertain one final motion, unless, unless you all want to talk about current voltage resistance.

  32. Unknown speaker1:08:10speaker not certain

      I'm in electric fields. Can we do that? You bet. Motion to aurn. Oh, first.

  33. Chair Jack (presiding)1:08:17

      Okay. First we'll entertain the motion to adjourn. All in favor say aye. Aye. All right. We're adjourned.

  34. Unknown speaker1:08:26speaker not certain

      I did, I voted against the, the I know, but you were overruled. Good board.

• Feb 24, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (18 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker46:54speaker not certain

     House Bill 5 34 firearm immunity amendments by Representative Ivory. This bill was served in public utilities and energy with vote of 11 0 1

  2. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)47:04

     Representative Ivory.

  3. Rep. Ken Ivory47:06

     Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro tem. This bill simply, uh, conforms the same immunity that private property owners have for someone carrying a firearm in their building. It conforms that to government building, owning owners and that's the whole bill.

  4. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)47:27

     Thank you. Representative. Representative. Do you, did you want the sub moved first? Sub

  5. Rep. Ken Ivory47:34

     Oh yes, I'm sorry. There was a very, very slight amendment that, uh, UHP requested. Okay.

  6. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)47:39

     Representative, Thank you very Much. Thank you for the presentation Discussion to the bill. Representative Gricius

  7. Rep. Stephanie Gricius47:46

     Motion to adopt the first substitute,

  8. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)47:48

     The motion is to adopt. First substitute. Would you like to speak to your motion?

  9. Rep. Stephanie Gricius47:52

     Sounds like there was a change that was asked for by law enforcement.

  10. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)47:56

      Thank you, Representative Gricius. Representative Ivory to the motion

  11. Rep. Ken Ivory47:59

      to adopt first substitute house bill 5 34. This Is a friendly amendment. Uh, UHP had just a couple word changes. We were happy to do that.

  12. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)48:07

      Thank you. The motion is to adopt first substitute house Bill 5 34. Discussion to the motion. Seeing none represent gracious for summation,

  13. Rep. Stephanie Gricius48:15

      waive summation is waived.

  14. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)48:17

      They'll place the motion to adopt first substitute house Bill 5 34. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Say no. Motion carries the adopt. The bill is adopted and substituted Representative Ivory to the bill.

  15. Rep. Ken Ivory48:30

      Uh, yeah, I think we already discussed the substance of it. I'll waive any further discussion.

  16. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)48:34

      Thank you Representative Ivory. Discussion to the bill. See none, Representative Ivory for summation. I

  17. Rep. Ken Ivory48:41

      Will waive summation. Thank you.

  18. Speaker Pro Tempore (presiding)48:42

      Summation is waived. Voting is open on first substitute house Bill 5 34 firearm immunity amendments Representative Hansen seeing all present, having voted voting will be closed. First substitute house bill 5 34 having received 60 yay votes and one nay vote passes the house and will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration matter.

• Feb 24, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (9 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)47:44

     Representative Gricius Motion to adopt the first substitute, The motion is to adopt. First substitute. Would you like to speak to your motion?

  2. Rep. Stephanie Gricius47:52

     Sounds like there was a change that was asked for by law enforcement.

  3. Speaker (presiding)47:56

     Thank you, Representative Gricius. Representative Ivory to the motion

  4. Rep. Ken Ivory47:59

     to adopt first substitute house bill 5 34. This Is a friendly amendment. Uh, UHP had just a couple word changes. We were happy to do that.

  5. Speaker (presiding)48:07

     Thank you. The motion is to adopt first substitute house Bill 5 34. Discussion to the motion. Seeing none represent gracious for summation, waive summation is waived. They'll place the motion to adopt first substitute house Bill 5 34. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Say no. Motion carries the adopt. The bill is adopted and substituted Representative Ivory to the bill.

  6. Rep. Ken Ivory48:30

     Uh, yeah, I think we already discussed the substance of it. I'll waive any further discussion.

  7. Speaker (presiding)48:34

     Thank you Representative Ivory. Discussion to the bill.

  8. Rep. Ken Ivory48:39

     See none, Representative Ivory for summation. I Will waive summation. Thank you.

  9. Speaker (presiding)48:42

     Summation is waived. Voting is open on first substitute house Bill 5 34 firearm immunity amendments Representative Hansen seeing all present, having voted voting will be closed. First substitute house bill 5 34 having received 60 yay votes and one nay vote passes the house and will be transmitted to the Senate for further consideration matter.

• Feb 27, 2026 Senate Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (26 turns)

  1. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (presiding)1:41:25

     This is house Bill 5 34. First substitute firearm immunity amendments Representative Ivory. Hey,

  2. Rep. Ken Ivory1:41:35

     Mr. Chairman, may I have my intern pass out some Flyers? Certainly, go ahead. I'm Hoping this is gonna be one of the fastest bills you've done, uh, all year. This is very simple. Okay. Uh, under 53 5 1 0 3, private property owners and tenants are not liable for someone that has a firearm on the press premises and discharges it unless they request it or assist in it. It just extends that same immunity to the state and to the subdivisions. And that's the bill. Okay. I brief, let me come to committee for any questions, then I have one from Senator Blouin.

  3. Sen. Lincoln Blouin1:42:09

     Yeah, maybe a couple questions. So I I I don't think it is that simple because this changes an individual to a person, which then I think wraps in, uh, LLCs and corporate entities and that sort of thing. Is that correct?

  4. Rep. Ken Ivory1:42:21

     No, I don't believe so. In the code, it defines that as a, as an individual person and someone to carry and hold a firearm, a corporation could not carry a firearm. That's not, uh, that's not what LRGC communicated to us.

  5. Sen. Nate Blouin1:42:35

     So I'm, I'm confused. Um, I think that opens up some real concerns that, uh, that there's a discrepancy between what we're being told by attorneys that drafted the bill and, uh, and what I just heard from you,

  6. Rep. Ken Ivory1:42:47

     Well, it does say an individual on line 76, right? An individual who, uh, may lawfully possess a firearm, I don't know, anywhere in the code that we refer to a corporation as an individual.

  7. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (presiding)1:43:01

     Follow up. Senator follow up.

  8. Sen. Nate Blouin1:43:02

     Yeah, I think that that piece there on line 37 is, is talking about property. So it'd be a, um, uh, a rather than just an individual's property, it'd be a person, which I believe is, has a, a wider definition is my understanding of what we were told earlier by LGC.

  9. Rep. Ken Ivory1:43:21

     Yeah, I'm not, I, I think to my knowledge, that's just a cleanup that wasn't something that we requested in the bill, but, but again, down in 76, it, it takes that same term individual who lawfully possesses. So that wouldn't apply to a company or an entity.

  10. Sen. Nate Blouin1:43:39

      I, well, we, we had a, we had a very different discussion earlier, so I'm, I'm concerned that this, uh, I'm actually even more concerned with there, with there being some confusion, confusion between the attorneys and what the, what was being communicated here. I think, uh, you know, one question that I had earlier was, would this open up, uh, and, uh, uh, uh, moving liability off of an organization? I mean, we, the, the thing that came to mind to me was the Charlie Kirk, uh, assassination. And, and would this then allow an organization like Turning Point, which is of course not an individual, but, uh, under the definition here with, with it being called a person, which allows it to be, um, potentially, I guess, uh, a corporate entity or something, uh, could they escape liability or could other, uh, outside groups, you know, that are using, that are on a, a public property, um, escape liability for, for, uh, an ins a horrible instance like that? Uh, or it's not like something else that could occur. So I guess that, that raised a concern and, and then the confusion here I guess raises a concern as well.

  11. Rep. Ken Ivory1:44:43

      Yeah, I think it's an interesting concern. I, um, in, in dealing with the drafting attorneys on this, that that never came up. It wasn't contemplated and I, I've never, maybe there was some other discussion that I'm not aware of, but, uh, here that, you know, it clearly states to individual a couple of different times and you know, I don't, uh, I'm just trying to think of how you would get from individual to an entity and I, I don't, you know, I can't really contemplate that, but it's interesting.

  12. Sen. Nate Blouin1:45:15

      I'm happy to keep the discussion going. I, you know, But yeah, I think it, I mean the, the, the point being that I think a, an individual and a person have have different meanings in code is my understanding of what was communicated by the attorneys earlier. So that's, that's why I raised that concern.

  13. Rep. Ken Ivory1:45:29

      Yeah, no, it's a great point. Uh, that was not something that was requested. You know, often our drafters, when they're doing bills, they try to conform language throughout. And so I mean that the only part that we requested was the part that's down from 75 to 82. And, uh, and so I would assume that, you know, person was something that is part of the drafting convention of our drafting attorneys. But I'm happy to chat with them and continue the discussion with you.

  14. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (presiding)1:45:57

      Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Okay, no further questions from the committee. Is there anyone in the public please come forward? Any others that would like to speak to this? Sure. Please come to the front, front row. Yeah. Thank you representative. Go ahead. We'll give you, uh, a minute and a half.

  15. Jenny Hoppie, Utah Association for Justice1:46:17

      Thank you. My name is Jenny Hoppy. I'm here today on behalf of the Utah Association for Justice, uh, which represents consumers, um, we are opposed to this, uh, legislation. Um, in the house committee, uh, discussions, they indicated that this is the goal is to conform governmental protections to the kinds of protections that individual, um, possessors of property would have. Um, we have an entire section of code that protects the government already. Um, and it's pretty robust. Uh, immunity is waived only in very exclusive circumstances. Um, this section provides blanket immunity, uh, in circumstances where a gun is discharged. And so to give you, um, an example of maybe just two examples of how this could be problematic. Um, the first would be, uh, the circumstance of, for instance, a a a school educator or a so-called guardian at a school who is there armed And, um, in some kind of, uh, circumstance, maybe see someone they think is a threat, they shoot down a crowded hallway, strike a student instead of the shooter. In that circumstance, there would be absolute immunity regardless of whether the person acted appropriately in discharging their firearm or not. Um, under existing law, that kind of, uh, behavior could be scrutinized. My second example is an off-duty sheriff's officer attending, uh, county fair. And he sees something that maybe is concerning, pulls his weapon trips and falls and discharges it and hits someone. This would give blanket immunity for that circumstance. Regardless of other assessments of the propriety of the behavior, we think that there's already quite a, a, a broad scope of immunity for the state of Utah. And so we would oppose this bill as it stands.

  16. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (presiding)1:48:05

      Thank you for your testimony. Next, sir, go ahead.

  17. Trevor Dyches, resident1:48:08

      Trevor Dikes, again, speaking for myself. Um, I am in favor of this bill. I really, um, again, I talked earlier about how small changes can have a big effect and I think this is another sim similar situation. Um, it, it does include, you know, the, this does not apply in certain situations, so it does address some of the issues that are concerned. Um, and, and so I think it's well worded, um, in its conciseness to be able to address the issues and still, um, fix this needed hole.

  18. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (presiding)1:48:34

      Thank you. Great. Thank you for your testimony. All right. Um, is there anyone else in the c public not seeing any? I'll bring it back. Senator Hinkins you have on.

  19. Sen. David P. Hinkins1:48:47

      Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a motion that we pass out house bill 5 34 first substitute with the favorable recommendation.

  20. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (presiding)1:48:54

      Thank you, Senator. The motion is in order that we pass out house Bill 5 34. First substitute discussion to the motion.

  21. Sen. David P. Hinkins1:49:00speaker not certain

      Senator Stratton, I was gonna make the motion, so thank you.

  22. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (presiding)1:49:04

      Oh, thank you. Okay. Discussion to the motion. Uh, hearing any, I'll come to you first. A motion. Yeah.

  23. Sen. Keven J. Stratton1:49:12

      Thank you Mr. Chair. I mean the, I appreciate the discussion. Uh, the second example that was brought up a sheriff at Affair that would already be on a private property that would already be covered by law. If it were a government property, then that really is the point. And the same thing with the teacher that a government actor that would have no way of knowing if someone was gonna do something unlawful, that they're not liable unless they instruct or assist or direct them. And that really is the whole point. And, and so that's the whole point of the bill.

  24. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (presiding)1:49:45

      Okay. Thank you Senator. I'll wa summation and call the question. Okay. And the question is, uh, we pass out house Bill 5 34. First substitute firearm immunity amendments to the full body of the Senate. In favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? If any, say nay. Okay. Rule that passes three to one. Thank you. Thank you.

  25. Sen. David P. Hinkins1:50:08speaker not certain

      A chair mine. Motion senator. Motion to adjourn.

  26. Sen. Derrin R. Owens (presiding)1:50:11

      Motion to adjourn. Non debatable. All in favor say aye. We are adjourned. Thank you for attending everyone. Have a good weekend. I.