Utah Guns Forum banner

Utah H.B. 76: Concealed Weapon Carry Amendments

30K views 209 replies 68 participants last post by  Sam Fidler 
#1 ·
#3 ·
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=757&sid=23828129

SALT LAKE CITY - Permits wouldn't be necessary for most people to carry concealed weapons in Utah if a state lawmaker gets his way.

Rep. John Mathis, R-Vernal, is sponsoring H.B. 76, which allows essentially any law-abiding citizen over the age of 21 in the state to carry a gun, openly or concealed.

Utah would effectively become a "constitutional carry" state if the measure is approved. That term refers to a state where carrying a concealed weapon isn't restricted by law.

Felons would still be barred from carrying concealed weapons, and it would still be illegal for people to be high or drunk while carrying. Brandishing laws would still apply.

School Grounds

The measure would also create a provision in state code dealing with penalties for the possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm or sawed-off shotgun on or about school premises.

The bill outlines that people would still be required to have a concealed weapons permit to legally bring a concealed gun on school grounds, unless it is approved by an administrator or is part of an approved activity.

Violators who bring a concealed gun to a school would be subject to class B misdemeanors for concealed weapons and class A misdemeanors for firearms and sawed-off shotguns.

Only a handful of states classify as "constitutional carry" states. There are a number of others with pending legislation.

Mathis' bill resembles state law in Vermont.

KSL's attempt to reach Mathis Wednesday morning was unsuccessful.
I don't like how the article only refers to bringing "Concealed Guns" onto school premises. I hope that it will be worded simply "carry" or "possess" instead of just "concealed".
That way open carry will still be left as an option. Once you require concealed permit to carry a concealed weapon on a campus then it could be interpreted that it must be concealed.
I enjoy open carrying to Parent Teacher Conferences, program, and Junior Jazz Games.
 
#6 ·
The OP posted the link to the bill. OK, not directly to the text but to the bill's tracking page which has a link to the text.

The Article is not the law or the bill and the bill's text makes no reference to it having to be concealed. It does not eliminate the CFP either which would still be available and recognized by other states.
 
#8 ·
cablecutter said:
I hope this passes... what can we do to help it pass? Another rally?
The best thing is to send a quick note (email or snail mail) to your State legislators (rep and senator) asking them to support the bill. Keep it short and sweet. "I support this bill and ask you to support it as well."

If you are feeling ambitious, send the same note to the governor, speaker of the Utah house, and Utah Senate President.

If you happen to be a delegate to the political party of any of these folks mention that in your letter to them. If you volunteered and helped on any of their campaigns, mention that without it looking like you expect any quid pro quo. "It was great getting to know you as I assisted with your campaign last time. I know you support our right to own and peaceably carry guns which is why I was happy to support your in your campaign. I support this bill and am asking you to support it as well..."

Contact info can be found on the GOUtah! webpage.

Charles
 
#10 ·
Anybody know if this will get rid of the stupid 'Utah unloaded' requirement for permitless carriers? I would LOVE for us to get rid of that.
 
#11 ·
brainoncapitalist said:
Anybody know if this will get rid of the stupid 'Utah unloaded' requirement for permitless carriers? I would LOVE for us to get rid of that.
75 (3) The provisions of Subsections 76-10-504 (1) and (2) and Section 76-10-505 do not
76 apply to a person 21 years of age or older who may lawfully possess a dangerous weapon.
 
#14 ·
Car Knocker said:
brainoncapitalist said:
Anybody know if this will get rid of the stupid 'Utah unloaded' requirement for permitless carriers? I would LOVE for us to get rid of that.
75 (3) The provisions of Subsections 76-10-504 (1) and (2) and Section 76-10-505 do not
76 apply to a person 21 years of age or older who may lawfully possess a dangerous weapon.
VERY NICE! :dancing:
 
#17 ·
pvupilot said:
I'm not quite sure if I like it. I know a few people who I would be kind of nervous having them carry and the reason they don't is because they don't want to take the time to do the class.
So you think a class is required to exercise a constitutional right? This concept is commonly called constitutional carry. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This gets us much closer to not being infringed.
 
#18 ·
pvupilot said:
I'm not quite sure if I like it. I know a few people who I would be kind of nervous having them carry and the reason they don't is because they don't want to take the time to do the class.
Do you think Utah is the only place such people exist? Between them, Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming have three times the population of Utah -- I guarantee you that there are people just like the ones you're thinking of in those states.

How much trouble has it caused? Look into it.
 
#19 ·
No that's not the idea at all. I'm the last person to go down that path, heck I was with all of you at the State Capital on Saturday. I'm simply stating that I personally don't see whats wrong with the current process here in Utah to get a concealed permit. If anything, it is to our benefit. The class teaches basic gun responsibility, clarifies gun laws, etc. Taking the class is a way to educated the person who is about to take on a huge responsibility.

However, I have learned to keep my opinions to myself on here... Rookie mistake
 
#20 ·
Pvu-- i have no problem "encouraging/recommending" but I won't be gong for a legal mandate

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#21 ·
pvupilot said:
However, I have learned to keep my opinions to myself on here... Rookie mistake
Na, don't keep it to yourself, just realize that if people don't agree with it, you will have to defend it. I step in it all the time in the Open Carry forum, and that hasn't stopped me yet :mrgreen:
 
#22 ·
pvupilot said:
No that's not the idea at all. I'm the last person to go down that path, heck I was with all of you at the State Capital on Saturday. I'm simply stating that I personally don't see whats wrong with the current process here in Utah to get a concealed permit. If anything, it is to our benefit. The class teaches basic gun responsibility, clarifies gun laws, etc. Taking the class is a way to educated the person who is about to take on a huge responsibility.

However, I have learned to keep my opinions to myself on here... Rookie mistake
You are welcome to your opinions. Divegeek is one of the libertarian in the crowd. I'm another one. Our stance is that the second amendment says "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does *NOT* say "unless you haven't paid the government their cut." or "as soon as you are trained properly enough."

It's an inalienable right. You don't need government permission to speak your mind, you shouldn't need their permission to exercise your right to self-defense in the manner most comfortable (open or concealed).
 
#25 ·
UtahJarhead said:
the second amendment says "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does *NOT* say "unless you haven't paid the government their cut." or "as soon as you are trained properly enough."

It's an inalienable right. You don't need government permission to speak your mind, you shouldn't need their permission to exercise your right to self-defense in the manner most comfortable (open or concealed).
I'll add a few more ideas to this...

First, it is already legal to carry a gun in Utah without a permit. I carried for a long time before I got my permit. In public, you have to remain open and unloaded, but in a car, your home, hunting, etc. you can carry however you want. People that want to carry already can. This law just allows people to put on a jacket without breaking the law. Do we really need training to be allowed to wear a jacket over our gun?

Next, if you do not have a permit but wish to be loaded, you have to do an awful lot of handling of a loaded gun. A loaded modern firearm in a proper holster is completely safe. A loaded firearm in the hands becomes much more dangerous. Without a permit, if I am carrying loaded in my car, I have to park the car, unholster and handle a loaded firearm while I unload it and then reholster before I can get out to go into a store or pump gas. When I return, reverse the process. That is a lot of unnecessary handling of a loaded firearm. If the law allowed loaded carry outside of my car, the chances of an accident are reduced drastically. Also imagine what someone thinks when they walk past and see me handling a gun just before I get out to walk into a store. Seems to me that I need more training and practice than if I have a permit.

Look at the current Utah cfp class. It is 3-4 hours of pretty basic gun safety and some coverage of Utah laws regarding firearms and self defense. No live-fire. No proficiency test. Does this course seem like it will really change how those who you are concerned about will handle a firearm? It seems to me that most people who want to legally carry a firearm are going to look into how to avoid breaking the law and generally how to not shoot themselves or their friend in the foot. If they don't already have experience around firearms, I bet most would be 'scared' to carry. I really don't know that the 4 hour class is giving them much more than a law abiding person will do on their own.

How many people do you think are going to run out and buy a gun with no training or knowledge of the laws merely because a news story told of a new law saying that they don't have to have permission to cover or load the gun? The fact is, if people want to carry a gun, they are already doing it and they most likely have much more training or experience than provided by the CFP course.

How often do you see someone carrying a firearm openly in public? It is pretty rare, because most people don't know it is legal. Those who carry investigated and found that it was legal. They researched, learned the law, and now exercise the rights the law allows. Law-abiding citizens don't just strap on a gun and walk around town without an understanding of the laws. Why would that change just because the law is slightly different? There will always be a few out there who feel they are above everyone else, but if they don't have concern for the laws anyway, what's the difference?

When states began issuing concealed carry permits, the opposition predicted bloodbath with people shooting each other over every-day arguments. Accidental shootings would abound. In fact, the opposite happened. Crime rates dropped significantly in every state that issued permits while the crime rates in the rest of country continued to rise drastically. The number of accidental shooting deaths didn't increase. There is no reason or evidence to assume that removing the permission slip required to cover the gun will result in any increase in incidents. Frankly, I find it insulting the state feels that I can be trusted so little that the only thing stopping me from shooting someone over hurt feelings is the fact that I don't have their permission to carry a gun.

And let's not forget... Criminals don't follow laws.
 
#26 ·
I'm all for it as long as it reduces and does not increase any restrictions that we currently face as legally armed citizens.

The permit should remain in place for those that wish to obtain it to carry at schools or in other reciprocal states.

I'd like to see the current list of restricted areas reduced to zero, as in NO GUN FREE ZONES in Utah, but that's an entirely different battle.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top