Can Utah's legislature restrict firearm possession by convicted felons under the state constitution? State v. Willis Explained

In State v. Willis, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether Utah Code section 76-10-503(2)(a), which prohibits certain “restricted persons” including felons on probation from possessing firearms, violates the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by article I, section 6 of the Utah Constitution.

Background and Facts
While on probation for evading a police officer, a third-degree felony, Willis became a suspect in the theft of a nine-millimeter handgun from his brother-in-law’s home. Police searched Willis’s residence and found the gun in his bedroom closet. Willis was charged with possession of a firearm by a restricted person under Utah Code section 76-10-503(2)(a). He moved to dismiss the charge, arguing the statute violated his constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but entered a conditional guilty plea reserving his right to appeal.

Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether article I, section 6 of the Utah Constitution, which guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms but allows the legislature to define “lawful use of arms,” prohibits restrictions on firearm possession by convicted felons. Willis argued for a distinction between the right to “use” arms (subject to regulation) and the right to “possess” arms (which he claimed was absolute).

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court applied a correctness standard to the constitutional challenge and statutory interpretation. Finding the constitutional language ambiguous, the court examined legislative history and policy considerations. The court rejected Willis’s proposed distinction between “use” and “possession,” noting that possession can itself constitute “use” for purposes of deterrence, collection, or peace of mind. The court emphasized that the 1984 constitutional amendment’s legislative history and voter information materials clearly indicated no intent to extend gun rights to convicted felons.

Practice Implications
This decision establishes that constitutional rights are not absolute and that courts will interpret constitutional provisions to avoid absurd results. When challenging firearm restrictions, practitioners should consider that Utah courts will examine both textual ambiguity and extrinsic evidence of legislative intent. The decision reinforces that the legislature retains broad authority to restrict firearm possession by categories of persons deemed dangerous to public safety.