Utah Guns Forum banner

Where can I carry my gun???

16K views 36 replies 12 participants last post by  UtahJarhead 
#1 ·
First, a little background. I already posted in the "Introduce Yourself" area, but I think it got deleted in the website update thingy. Anyway, I'm 18 years old and recently acquired a firearm of the concealable variety in a private transaction. I have a couple questions before I go around with it strapped to my side.

1) Can I open carry a pistol in Utah as an 18 year old?

2) Assuming that answer to 1 is yes, where would I be prohibited? I already understand no federal buildings (courthouses, post office, federal banks, etc)

3) Also assuming a yes to question 1, I must always keep the gun two stages away from firing yes? Rack slide, fire.

I think that's all for now. Thanks!
 
#27 ·
And in the case where the hammer is at rest between live cartridges one is in compliance with the law if the next position is empty as there Is no live round under the hammer. This only applies to those carrying without a permit and not in a vehicle assuming they are 18 years or older.
 
#28 ·
metalgimp said:
UtahJarhead said:
No round under the hammer, no round in the next firing position.
Need I state the obvious? That means you only have 4 rounds in a 6-shooter or 3 rounds in a 5. I like the clear-cut definitions, but man, the results leaves me feeling a little cold.
You can state the obvious, and you're right, but in either case the law is very clear on what constitutes loaded. Also see JoeSparky's addendum above.
 
#29 ·
mljdeckard said:
Be careful with the definition of an 'unloaded' revolver. The law is poorly written and creates confusion. Because it fails to state whether the 'firing position' means with the hammer cocked or with the hammer down, it can be inferred that you can't have a live cartridge under the hammer, even though it is impossible to fire that cartridge, because when you cock the hammer, the NEXT cartridge rotates to the firing position. It's a quirk in the law no one wants to address, because it's easier to just get a permit and not worry about it.
Actually, the law is perfectly clear. Firing position is the round under the hammer, in line with the barrel. That is "firing position".

The "quirk" is not in the law itself, but in the history of which laws are passed when. The law against carrying a "loaded firearm" was passed first. I wasn't there, but suspect the requirements are based on safety considerations. A round in "firing position" might be fired accidentally (ie an ND) if a non-drop-safe firearm is dropped. So the law requires no live round in "firing position." The law, in this case, simply mirrors what was fairly common practice among the old timers who knew well enough to leave the chamber under the hammer empty to avoid an ND in the event of a drop or other impact to the gun.

It then requires that no round can be fired by the actuation of a single mechanism, once. So if you have a double-action revolver, the next up chamber must be empty. However, in a single-action revolver, no round can be fired by the actuation of a single mechanism once, so you are free to have the next up chamber (and all others) loaded with live rounds. The single-action NAA mini-revolvers with the safety notch between chambers presents a unique case as the cylinder can be positioned such that no chamber is in "firing position".

In any event, years or decades later we pass firearm carry permit statutes and exempt holders of permits from the statute banning loaded guns.

A similar situation happened with permit-free car carry. We worked the bill to allow loaded and concealed firearms to be carried in cars without permits. Right near the end, some legislators raised safety concerns about long guns that maybe were not as drop-safe as were handguns. To pass the bill, we accepted a limitation that the "loaded" portion applied only to handguns. Of course, those with permits are still exempted from the entire statute and can still have loaded long guns if they desire.

The reason no one has made an effort to "fix" the "loaded" statute is because we can't figure out how to make it any better (short of complete repeal) for gun owners. The simple statute is to not allow any live ammo in the gun at all. That would be a huge step backwards. We could try to diddle around with eliminating the whole "actuation of a single mechanism once" but that is a very small gain at the risk of legislators deciding to just go the other direction and require no live rounds at all. The best fix is to just eliminate the ban on loaded guns in public and go for permit-free, constitutional carry. Even then, that is likely to be passed first as some kind of "limited" exemption to current statute as Alaska did.

Charles
 
#30 ·
metalgimp said:
UtahJarhead said:
No round under the hammer, no round in the next firing position.
Need I state the obvious? That means you only have 4 rounds in a 6-shooter or 3 rounds in a 5. I like the clear-cut definitions, but man, the results leaves me feeling a little cold.
That is current law for a double-action. For a single-action, you can do 5 rounds in a 6 shooter and 4 in a 5 shooter. If you single-action has the safety notch in which to rest the hammer between rounds, you can get away with loading up all chambers as there is not a chamber in firing position when the gun is carried.

A permit to carry exempts one from this requirement, A Utah permit also exempts one from the federal GFSZ law as applied to schools (and 1000 feet out from the edge of school property) located in Utah. It is all but impossible to carry sans permit in a Utah city without violation of the federal GFSZ law.

The proper "fix" to the "quirk" of Utah's ban on carrying "loaded" guns is to eliminate the ban entirely and move to permit-free (ie Constitutional) carry; either open or concealed.

Any other "fix" to simplify it would most likely result in requiring that an "unloaded" gun simply have no live ammo at all in it. No magazine in a semi-auto, all chambers empty in a revolver.

Our current "quirky" law is much to our advantage, comparatively.

Charles
 
#31 ·
bagpiper said:
Right near the end, some legislators raised safety concerns about long guns that maybe were not as drop-safe as were handguns. To pass the bill, we accepted a limitation that the "loaded" portion applied only to handguns. Of course, those with permits are still exempted from the entire statute and can still have loaded long guns if they desire.
I could swear that I had heard on several occasions that this was not true that even with a permit long guns(in a vehicle) needed to be unloaded. However I could not tell you exactly where I heard but very likely somewhere here. This does not really affect me as currently only have 1 long gun and no need for it to remain loaded when not in use.
 
#32 ·
The law is very explicit on this. No CFP = long guns unloaded. CFP makes you exempt from that law, meaning you can carry a loaded long gun in your vehicle.
 
#33 ·
D-FIN said:
bagpiper said:
Right near the end, some legislators raised safety concerns about long guns that maybe were not as drop-safe as were handguns. To pass the bill, we accepted a limitation that the "loaded" portion applied only to handguns. Of course, those with permits are still exempted from the entire statute and can still have loaded long guns if they desire.
I could swear that I had heard on several occasions that this was not true that even with a permit long guns(in a vehicle) needed to be unloaded. However I could not tell you exactly where I heard but very likely somewhere here. This does not really affect me as currently only have 1 long gun and no need for it to remain loaded when not in use.
The ban on loaded guns in cars is found at 76-10-505 that offers an exemption to most cases of an adult in a vehicle he lawfully controls, but then also says that long guns must be unloaded.

76-10-505 said:
76-10-505. Carrying loaded firearm in vehicle or on street.

(1) Unless otherwise authorized by law, a person may not carry a loaded firearm:
(a) in or on a vehicle, unless:
(i) the vehicle is in the person's lawful possession; or
(ii) the person is carrying the loaded firearm in a vehicle with the consent of the person lawfully in possession of the vehicle;
(b) on a public street; or
(c) in a posted prohibited area.
(2) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply to a minor under 18 years of age, since a minor under 18 years of age may not carry a loaded firearm in or on a vehicle.
(3) Notwithstanding Subsection (1)(a)(i) and (ii), a person may not possess a loaded rifle, shotgun, or muzzle-loading rifle in a vehicle.
(4) A violation of this section is a class B misdemeanor.
Utah issues permits to carry firearms under the authority of 53-05-704 which expressly exempts holders of said permits from 76-10-505 (as well as 76-10-504 (1) and (2)).

53-05-704 said:
(1) (a) The bureau shall issue a permit to carry a concealed firearm for lawful self defense to an applicant who is 21 years of age or older within 60 days after receiving an application, unless the bureau finds proof that the applicant does not meet the qualifications set forth in Subsection (2).
(b) The permit is valid throughout the state for five years, without restriction, except as otherwise provided by Section 53-5-710.
(c) The provisions of Subsections 76-10-504(1) and (2), and Section 76-10-505 do not apply to a person issued a permit under Subsection (1)(a).
...
On a related topic, the ban on carrying a concealed weapon is found at 76-10-504 which was amended to not apply to vehicles...

76-10-504 said:
(1) Except as provided in Section 76-10-503 and in Subsections (2), (3), and (4), a person who carries a concealed dangerous weapon, as defined in Section 76-10-501, including an unloaded firearm on his or her person or one that is readily accessible for immediate use which is not securely encased, as defined in this part, in or on a place other than the person's residence, property, a vehicle in the person's lawful possession, or a vehicle, with the consent of the individual who is lawfully in possession of the vehicle, or business under the person's control is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
...
Charles
 
#34 ·
UtahJarhead said:
The law is very explicit on this. No CFP = long guns unloaded. CFP makes you exempt from that law, meaning you can carry a loaded long gun in your vehicle.
But if you have a CFP and want to carry a loaded long gun in your car, please make sure it's safe to do so, and that the gun isn't going to go off if it gets jolted hard. Your granddad's deer rifle is probably not safe.
 
#35 ·
divegeek said:
UtahJarhead said:
The law is very explicit on this. No CFP = long guns unloaded. CFP makes you exempt from that law, meaning you can carry a loaded long gun in your vehicle.
But if you have a CFP and want to carry a loaded long gun in your car, please make sure it's safe to do so, and that the gun isn't going to go off if it gets jolted hard. Your granddad's deer rifle is probably not safe.
I tell all of my students they can... but in my opinion, there is never a reason enough for me to ever do so.
 
#36 ·
divegeek said:
UtahJarhead said:
But if you have a CFP and want to carry a loaded long gun in your car, please make sure it's safe to do so, and that the gun isn't going to go off if it gets jolted hard. Your granddad's deer rifle is probably not safe.
I tell all of my students they can... but in my opinion, there is never a reason enough for me to ever do so.
I view this allowance a lot like I do Utah's allowance to imbibe in "adult beverages" while carrying.

Not every safety rule needs to be enforced by criminal penalties.

Now, if someone's person or property is injured as a result of violating common sense safety rules, or in other words, failing to maintain a reasonable man standard of care, then punishment is warranted.

But if a guy wants a drink with dinner while carrying, or wants to toss his long gun into the back seat for a quick trip across the pasture without fully unloading it, so long as no one else is injured or materially injured I don't see a need for criminal penalties.

Some actions carry such a high risk of harm to others that criminal penalties are warranted even if nobody is hurt on any given occasion. But others carry such a low risk that penalties should not attach unless some injury, or greater offense (like an ND) actually takes place.

Charles
 
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