The ease with which one can get a Utah permit to carry a concealed weapon in other states is incredible. It is not even necessary to ever have fired a gun.From 2009 to 2010 the number of Utah permits issued to Texans more than doubled to 5,678 from 2,173, according to Utah's Bureau of Criminal Identification. Of the 66,371 permits Utah issued last year, more than 70 percent went to out-of-staters, bureau figures show. All this was while the overall number of concealed licenses issued in Utah declined.
There is good news, though.
Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he worries that some people are getting Utah permits because they want to skirt background-check provisions in their home states.
"What are they hiding?" Malte asked.
Aware of the loophole, Utah is moving to tighten requirements. A bill recently approved by the Utah House and Senate would require out-of-staters seeking a Utah permit to first get one from their home state if their state recognizes the Utah permit. The proposal followed decisions by Nevada and New Mexico to stop recognizing Utah permits.
What's your opinion? Are they coming to their senses even in the wild, wild west?
"We didn't want to have a cottage industry of issuing concealed weapons permits for the whole United States," said Utah state Sen. John Valentine, author of the measure.
Please leave a comment.
"Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he worries that some people are getting Utah permits because they want to skirt background-check provisions in their home states. "
ReplyDeleteYou folks really don't understand liberty or economics.
Once constitutional carry is in all the states we won't have to beg permission any more. Only a matter of time.
I'd like to see us moving to a country where permits and "gun-free zones" are completely done away with.
ReplyDeleteHowever, before THAT is allowed, we need something like mandatory gun safety education in public schools (like I propose here)
Ahh, dreams of sweet freedom.
...Orygunner...
I know a lot of those Utah permits go to Californians because CA is a “may not issue” state. They still can’t carry in their home state (because CA does not recognize any other permits), but they can carry in the states that recognize Utah’s permit when they travel there. As usual, the gun control side wants to assume it is criminals taking advantage of “loopholes”.
ReplyDeletePlus CA is against polygamy. A lot of gunloons like the idea of multiple wives. Unfortunately, they have difficulty attracting any women.
ReplyDeleteAre they coming to their senses even in the wild, wild west?
ReplyDeleteIt would seem so. I certainly see reason for optimism in Utah:
HB129 would implement a “constitutional carry” policy in the state, in which anyone over the age of 21 without a history of serious criminal activity or mental illness could carry a loaded, concealed gun. Currently, those people would have to take a concealed weapons course, pass a background check and purchase a permit.
Constitutional carry--that's what liberty looks like.
lulz.
ReplyDeleteIt has been shown many times how those who have been excluded from getting a permit in other states have been able to get one through Utah. There's typically a good reason why they were excluded in their home state, usually due to illegal activity.
ReplyDeleteI think Utah, of all states (!), might actually be coming to their senses about a gun issue.
So, if Utah stops issuing out-of-state permits but goes for Constitutional Carry at least they'd keep their own problems to themselves.
ReplyDeleteOf course, all this is going to end when the country comes to its senses and the complexion of the Supreme Court changes.
@Jadegold, you wrote: " A lot of gunloons like the idea of multiple wives."
ReplyDeleteWhat is "a lot" to you? Three? Seven?
I actually contend that there are more NON-Gun owners that like the idea of multiple wives than "gunloons."
That seems more plausible since gun owners ARE a minority in the US...
Although, what is the gun ownership rate among Mormons, anyway? Anybody know?
...Orygunner...
So let me jump in with a couple thoughts and questions. If I happen to have a home state license, and a Utah license, along with a Florida license, I can legally carry in over 2/3rds of the "United" states.
ReplyDeleteSo I get run through finger prints, pictures and background checks from 3 separate locations. I took the Utah class, passed the Florida test by being a fully trained military Veteran, honorably discharged.
So all that being said, and all that being done, do I understand that you still agree with the few states left that will ban me from carrying my self protection weapon?
If I go accidentally to NY, I would be a Felon? NJ, Mass, CT... Same. You agree with that? Really?
So in the "United" States you are saying that a now recognized right is somehow changed because of lines on a map. That, even though I have over 30 years of lawful compliance, you would be ok with me being charged a felony if I were to accidentally be caught carrying across a non approved state line?
Lets discuss the hypocrisy of this, please.
Dannytheman, Thanks for coming by and for leaving a comment.
ReplyDeleteAs a responsible gun owner with all your experience, would you mind telling us how this could ever happen.
"If I go accidentally to NY."
Don't you choose where you go? Aren't you in total control of your movements? Do you believe in "accidental" discharges of the gun too? Even the pro-gun guys around here agree there's no such thing, it's "negligence." I'd say that goes even more for crossing state lines.
You're problem is twofold, I'm guessing here. You hate being told what you can and cannot do with your guns and you hate to be inconvienced.
I oppose all the new laws which make concealed carry easier. I think the strictest standards of "may issue" should be inforced combined with increased mental health screening. Violent misdemeanors should be a disqualifier, and no reciprocity.
My way, you'd have a safer country. You'd screen out many people who are not responsible enough to handle guns but who are not criminal enough to go all the way and break gun laws outright.
@Mikeb, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"My way, you'd have a safer country. You'd screen out many people who are not responsible enough to handle guns but who are not criminal enough to go all the way and break gun laws outright."
You're focusing on the tiniest minority of those responsible for violent crimes, and think it's significant enough to give us a "safer country."
I believe you are right, this WOULD effect the subset of crimes you describe, but you're not considering the unintended consequences. How many people are your draconian rules going to prevent from having a firearm to protect themselves when they need it?
I know you like to downplay the defensive uses of firearms, but it DOES happen, and your plan WILL prevent some defensive uses of firearms from occurring.
What's an acceptable trade-off for you? If you save 10 lives, is it worth it if you have prevented 10 other people from saving their own lives? or 5? or 15?
Why can't you just hold people accountable for the crimes they DO commit instead of constantly suggesting you can legislate responsibility and pre-emptively prevent a few mostly law-abiding citizens from committing crimes?
...Orygunner...
As a responsible gun owner with all your experience, would you mind telling us how this could ever happen.
ReplyDelete"If I go accidentally to NY."
Don't you choose where you go? Aren't you in total control of your movements? Do you believe in "accidental" discharges of the gun too? Even the pro-gun guys around here agree there's no such thing, it's "negligence." I'd say that goes even more for crossing state lines.
Well Mike,
Have you ever missed an on ramp or an exit while driving. Here in PA, you could accidentally have to cross a bridge and pay a toll to turn around. Do I jam on the brakes while crossing the Delaware River and attempt to jump the barrier?
I ride a motorcycle on some back roads, if I accidentally read a sign saying "Welcome" to Maryland, I am forced to pull over, hopefully on the legal side of the invisible line, unholster, unload and store my weapon in the various saddlebags I use. (Unnecessary handling truthfully)
Bases on your statements you are putting me in a position to cause a negligent discharge, where as if I just kept the weapon holstered I would be fine.
As I mentioned to you, I do everything in my ability to avoid these states and not spend money in them, my choice. I can not ignore that I live close to the border of 2 of them.
Let's go through a trip on my bike to Reston, Virginia. I leave PA with my gun holstered on my belt. I drive legally through PA and Delaware. I am forced to pull off and unload and separate my empty weapon from my magazine prior to entering Maryland and DC. So then after entering VA on 495, I pull back over and re-arm. Finish my trip. I did not break any laws, but I openly admit I was forced to handle my weapon more than I would have preferred, or should have.
It is not I hate being told what to do, it is that consistent safety measures are ignored. Oh, and so you get a sense of why i don't mind pulling over? I mentioned motorcycle right. So I have to pull over to put on my helmet at the Maryland state line, because the nanny state insists on protecting me from harming my head while I drive at 75MPH down I-95.
So am I into FREEDOM, yup.
No reciprocity you say? So you don't think of us as the "United States?"
Can you describe for me what your definition of freedom is? The freedom to restrict me? My rights?
So my answers are deleted?
ReplyDeleteWas I not civil and descriptive in them?
Again, I say that anyone who drive a motor vehicle on any interstate can easily miss an exit and or take an exit and accidentally be forced to enter border state, whereby be in opportunity to be caught breaking an invisible barrier and become a convicted felon.
I try to answer your questions as best as I can. When I reviewed it, I noticed that you did not answer my initial question.
"That, even though I have over 30 years of lawful compliance, you would be ok with me being charged a felony if I were to accidentally be caught carrying across a non approved state line?"
I am assuming your answer is yes, I should spend 10-30 years in jail.
Thank God for jury trials, huh?
Where is there any factual evidence that Utah permits are being abused?
ReplyDeleteMike, how does this affect you while living in Italy?
Jadegold, more meaningless interjections into polite debate. First, we like guns therefore we must be racist and Klansmen, now we must be polygamists? Well, there's some rational logic. When you get back on your meds and the voices in your head calm down, try expressing some ideas that might actually contribute to the process.
Danny, I think you're having some difficulty with the individual responsibility concept. First you're worried about getting into trouble for "accidentally" crossing a state line against your will, then, if you happen to see the border crossing coming up, it would be our fault if you have a negligent discharge.Because of our stupid laws you were forced to handle the gun.
ReplyDeleteThe people in NJ may not want someone like you carrying a gun in their fair state. Isn't it their right to decide that? Who are you to bitch about it?
Freedom for me would be keeping all you guys 5 miles from the border. Any closer you could hurt someone in Jersey with one of your negligent discharges, which wouldn't be your fault, but just in case let's give it a 5-mile gun free zone all around the border. How's that sound?