Students react to the passing of HB84
A new state law is shifting the landscape of campus safety across Utah, sparking a mix of apprehension and support among the Utah State University community.
House Bill 84, “School Safety Amendments,” was passed during the recent legislative session, effectively removing existing statutes that restricted the permit-less carrying of dangerous weapons on public college and university campuses.
The legislation allows individuals 21 or older to carry concealed weapons at higher education institutions without a permit. While it maintains restrictions on open carry, the bill also clarifies that individuals aged 18 to 20 may carry an unloaded firearm in any public location not otherwise prohibited by state or federal law.
Recent data suggests the student body is deeply divided on the implications of these changes. In early February, the USU Government Relations Council, GRC, conducted a poll via social media and word-of-mouth to gauge student sentiment.
“I do want to make it clear that this information reflects the data from a poll conducted on students at Utah State University,” said Shailynn Spangler, a member of the USU GRC. “These opinions do not necessarily reflect the stance of the university or the Government Relations Council.”
The poll results revealed a fragmented student body. Out of 56 respondents, 20 reported being “very against” the bill, while eight expressed they were “happy with the bill and excited for it to be considered.” Six respondents reported feeling “torn,” while the remaining 22 were neutral, unaware of the bill or declined to answer.
The qualitative feedback from students highlighted the emotional weight of the Second Amendment debate on campus.
One anonymous student respondent expressed strong support, stating, “I feel it is one of the best and most important bills that the state legislature has brought to the table this year and it is needed to have people feel safe on college campuses.”
Conversely, other students voiced significant fear regarding the increased presence of firearms.
“I feel scared and disgusted,” one anonymous student respondent wrote. “It feels extremely irresponsible, especially following Charlie Kirk’s shooting at Utah Valley. It’s frankly unnecessary and kind of idiotic.”
While the bill focuses on firearm regulations, it also addresses broader school safety protocols. At the local level, law enforcement officials emphasize that physical security is only one piece of the puzzle.
Officer Micah Talbot of the USU Police Department noted that while HB84 addresses safety objectives, the university continues to prioritize a community-centered approach, particularly at campus-affiliated schools like Edith Bowen Laboratory School.
“In discussing HB84 and school safety, I believe it’s essential to choose solutions that genuinely meet the needs of the school community,” Talbot wrote in an email to The Utah Statesman. “At Edith Bowen, options were carefully evaluated, and in partnership with Utah State University, the school selected the School Resource Officer model.”
Talbot argues the presence of an officer provides benefits that legislation alone cannot offer, such as building a “direct connection” to local law enforcement.
“From my many years serving as a School Resource Officer, I’ve seen firsthand that the role extends far beyond safety protocols,” Talbot wrote. “An effective SRO builds meaningful relationships with faculty, students, and parents. Those relationships strengthen trust, improve communication, and ultimately create a safer and more supportive environment for everyone.”
As the university moves forward under the new legal framework, the debate remains on whether safety is best found in increased personal protection or in the established presence of law enforcement professionals.