This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2017, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

On Dec. 4, Sue Ann Sands joined a list of Utahns gunned down, victims of domestic violence.

Her attacker, an ex-boyfriend named James Dean Smith, had rammed her green Volkswagen Beetle in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart in American Fork before firing seven shots as she called for help. One struck her in the head, killing her. Smith later died in a shootout with police.

An unofficial tally by The Salt Lake Tribune found that nearly 30 percent of all Utah homicides in 2016 were the result of domestic violence.

This session, state Rep. Lee Perry, R-Perry, is proposing legislation that would make significant steps to curb those numbers.

His bill, HB237, seeks to prevent perpetrators named in protective orders — like Smith — from possessing a firearm and to require someone convicted of domestic violence to surrender his or her weapons within 72 hours. It would make domestic-violence offenses committed with a gun present a class A misdemeanor and would require law enforcement to be notified when someone prohibited from having a gun due to domestic violence tries to purchase a firearm.

But Perry's bill doesn't stop there — and that creates a problem.

Perry's bill takes those measures aimed at reducing domestic-violence homicide and mashes them up with a controversial proposal to no longer require Utahns over the age of 21 to get a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon.

There's really no logical reason to merge the two, except Perry seems to be looking for a bill that won't force a showdown with Gov. Gary Herbert, who has previously vetoed "constitutional carry" legislation and has indicated he likely would again.

"He asked us to send him something different," Perry told me this week, "and this is different."

It is that, no question.

But it's an unnecessary union. The domestic violence measures contained in Perry's bill could each stand or fall on their own merits, as could the permitless carry provision. Instead, Perry appears to be using the domestic violence components to neutralize opposition to his gun bill.

Law enforcement groups, for example, have consistently fought against proposals to do away with the concealed-weapons permit. Perry, who is a Utah Highway Patrol lieutenant, acknowledges that they are again opposing that bill.

And Herbert, who is no softy on the Second Amendment, has said his view hasn't changed — the system of background checks in place to get and keep a permit works, and an effort to jettison that would be vetoed.

It's easy to see, however, how Herbert could be put in a corner if it comes to potentially vetoing a bill cracking down on domestic violence.

Perry said that his goal is to show that gun owners take domestic violence seriously, and he wants to keep firearms out of the hands of perpetrators.

And, while I don't believe it's his intent, his bill could have the opposite effect.

Here's how: According to the latest figures from the state Bureau of Criminal Identification, in 2015 and 2016, 342 concealed-weapons permit applications were denied because the applicant had a domestic-violence offense or protective order on his or her record.

Thirty-nine permits were revoked and 53 were suspended due to domestic violence or protective-order issues.

The bottom line is that background checks that are in place work and nearly 450 individuals are being denied the permit to carry concealed guns.

More broadly, weapons-permit revocations and denials for any reason reached all-time highs in 2016, with 1,583 applications denied and 1,630 permits revoked for reasons ranging from outstanding warrants to mental illness to drug offenses.

It is true that federal law already makes it illegal for a domestic-violence offender to possess a gun — concealed or not — and Perry's move toward no longer requiring a permit wouldn't change that.

But the permit does provide another layer of checks and protection for victims of domestic violence. Adding to those protections is a worthwhile goal, but the safeguards should be allowed to stand on their own.

And if the gun community wants to argue against protecting domestic-violence victims, they're free to do that, at the risk of their own credibility.

gehrke@sltrib.com Twitter: @RobertGehrke