After a volunteer "peacekeeper" shot and killed an innocent bystander at a No Kings protest in Utah earlier this year, a pair of Democrat lawmakers are hoping to use the incident to make some changes to the state's self-defense statutes.
State Sen. Kathleen Riebe and State Rep. Rep. Verona Mauga are offering up legislation that they say would prevent a repeat of the shooting this past summer, which eventually led to Matthew Scott Alder being charged with manslaughter in the shooting death of protest attendee Arthur "Afa" Folasa Ah Loo.
Alder said he fired his weapon because he feared 24-year-old Arturo Gamboa, who was carrying an assault-style rifle at the gathering, was about to commit a mass shooting, charging documents show.
Two bullets Alder allegedly fired wounded Gamboa. Investigators say Alder’s third and final gunshot killed Ah Loo, who was participating in the march.
Prosecutors are only charging Alder in Ah Loo’s death because his first two shots could be protected under Utah’s self-defense justification law, Gill said during a news conference announcing the charge.
“We believe that the third shot was the reckless shot, and while you may have a right to use lethal force, that doesn’t mean that lethal force can be used in a reckless manner,” Gill said. “...An assailant assumes the risk of being killed by [their] victim. A bystander, however, does nothing to trigger the victim’s use of deadly force, and cannot be held to have assumed the same risk as the assailant simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
I'm not sure why prosecutors aren't going after Alder for shooting Gamboa as well, given that he was apparently legally carrying his rifle, but regardless of that decision it's clear that Utah law already allows for charges to be brought when a bystander is shot, even if the person was otherwise acting in lawful self-defense. So why try to change that, and what would those changes entail?
Riebe said she believes there are a few instances in Utah law where the loophole Gill cited could come into play — specifically with the “guardian law” passed in 2024 that requires armed guards in every public school across the Beehive State.
At the time that bill was considered, Riebe questioned who would be liable should an innocent person get caught in the crosshairs of a “school guardian.” Riebe said she’s looking at other states as she works to determine what should happen if a person opening fire in self-defense accidentally kills someone else.
Generally speaking, the laws in most other states closely resemble those in Utah. If someone is reckless in the use of their firearm while acting in self-defense and an innocent bystander is injured or killed, prosecutors can file criminal charges.
There is a notable exception, though. Police officers are typically have civil liability for their actions on the job, though officers can and have faced criminal charges for excessive use of force. What Riebe needs to do is to look at how Utah's laws would impact school resource officers who might accidentally shoot an innocent person, and then apply that same standard to school guardians acting in their official duties. If, God forbid, a student is accidentally shot by a Guardian who's firing at an active shooter, I don't think the Guardian should face criminal charges unless they were acting recklessly and without regard for students and staff.
Riebe hasn't provided any details of what changes she'd like to see, but Mauga has offered some specifics about her own gun control response to the 'No Kings' shooting.
Mauga wants to prohibit open carry of firearms within 500 feet of large public gatherings of 200 people or more. Violators would face a misdemeanor charge if they refuse to comply after a verbal warning from law enforcement to either conceal the weapon or move farther from the gathering, Mauga said.
Similar laws already exist in Alabama and North Carolina, Mauga added.
“The focus is specifically on open carry at large, crowded events where tensions can be high and misunderstandings can escalate quickly,” Mauga said in a text message. “... I introduced this bill because I don’t want to see what happened to Afa happen to anyone else.”
Mauga's bill, if adopted, would probably survive a court challenge since it wouldn't actually ban the carrying of firearms at or near large public gatherings. Instead, it regulates the manner of carrying, and I suspect the federal courts would give it a pass.
But would it really make a difference? A volunteer "peacekeeper" could see the butt of a pistol if someone's coat blows open and assume that the gun owner has some nefarious intent, just like Alder's response when he saw Arturo Gamboa lawfully carrying a long gun.
Incidents like the one that led to charges against Alder are extraordinarily rare, and frankly, I'm not convinced that they merit a legislative response of any kind. It seems to me that Utah statutes already provide police and prosecutors with tools to charge gun owners who act recklessly, even in defense of themselves or others, and I think lawmakers would be better off keeping the status quo in place instead of introducing changes that could come with unintended consequences.
Editor's Note: Christmas is coming a little early here at Bearing Arms!
For a limited time, use the promo code MERRY74 for 74% off a VIP, VIP Gold, or VIP Platinum membership when you sign up! It's our way of saying thanks for your support in our mission to bring you the latest Second Amendment news, information, and informed opinion from across the country.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member