Utah Guns Forum banner

Rules of oc

14K views 41 replies 19 participants last post by  RemohGramps 
#1 ·
I posted this yesterday but I don't know if it actually posted. What are the rules on oc versus cc if you have a concealed weapons permit? I did not think we were allowed to open carry.

Thanks,

Ryan
 
#27 ·
Ryan1971 said:
Hello everyone. Just wanted to make sure I was updated on the rules of a concealed weapon permit holder. Do all of the rules from 2010 still apply. I.e. carrying in a school zone, carrying with a round in the chamber, carrying open or concealed etc. If you have a concealed weapons permit you can carry concealed or open correct? Thank you
The laws are found here:

http://le.utah.gov/UtahCode/section.jsp?code=76-10

I would recommend reading them for yourself to make sure that you understand them. They are between 76-10-500 and 76-10-530. There are other places for some of the laws, but these are the laws that you are asking about.

With a Utah CFP, you can carry at Utah schools with a firearm. You can carry loaded or unloaded. You can carry concealed or open.
 
#31 ·
Cinhil said:
No correction needed here, the Right to Travel is a constitutionally protected Right and has been upheld on numerous occasions where cities or states have sought to deprive citizens of monies. You may find these decisions in many places within the texts of law books, where they quote decisions, and other public sources, including law libraries. Some decisions are listed on some web sites as well. But that was not why I posted here, I only mentioned inherent rights which government entities feel they have a ability to charge you in order to allow you certain rights, such as driving or carrying concealed. This other can be a whole thread by itself, should you desire further information, or research may be done to discover it as I have done.
Right to travel yes. Right to travel by any means you feel like ? No. If the government starts trying to prevent you from walking from Utah to California... they are restricting your right of free travel. If they ask you to demonstrate appropriate knowledge and skill before operating a 2 ton piece of machinery on a roadway at high speed, with thousands of other people in close proximity, they are not restricting any constitutional rights. By that logic, any Joe off the street could go and hop in an airplane or helicopter and start flying around.
 
#33 ·
gravedancer said:
By that logic, any Joe off the street could go and hop in an airplane or helicopter and start flying around.
Well, there are those of us who think that should be their right. :)
 
#34 ·
UtahJarhead said:
gravedancer said:
By that logic, any Joe off the street could go and hop in an airplane or helicopter and start flying around.
Well, there are those of us who think that should be their right. :)
Having flown both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, I can tell you the last thing I would want is an untrained pilot flying any aircraft, especially a helicopter, anywhere near me or any property which I hold dear.
 
#35 ·
gravedancer said:
UtahJarhead said:
gravedancer said:
By that logic, any Joe off the street could go and hop in an airplane or helicopter and start flying around.
Well, there are those of us who think that should be their right. :)
Having flown both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, I can tell you the last thing I would want is an untrained pilot flying any aircraft, especially a helicopter, anywhere near me or any property which I hold dear.
That is what the training wheels on the bicycle are for.... until you get enough knowledge and experience about maintaining balance and control so you don't injure yourself or others or damage property.
We don't have a huge federal bureaucracy called the Federal Cycling Administration for this.

The FAA and its predecessor where created early in the 20th century during the time in which the PROGRESSIVES in our country were riding roughshod over our Constitution by making all sorts of agencies, rules, and laws to "protect us" from ourselves and others. All of which have had the net result of decreasing our freedoms and removed us from the responsibility of many of our actions.

Just think regarding the FDA--- Aspirin has been a staple in the medications for its ability to reduce fever, decrease pain, and reduce the risk of Heart Attack. But it does have some serious problems when used by certain persons, probably the most severe being anaphylaxic reactions in those with allergy to Aspirin. Aspirin would NEVER make it through the system imposed at present by the FDA all in the framework of "protecting" us.

Ok, I'm ranting---- rant over and its is time I do something else.
 
#36 ·
JoeSparky said:
That is what the training wheels on the bicycle are for.... until you get enough knowledge and experience about maintaining balance and control so you don't injure yourself or others or damage property.
We don't have a huge federal bureaucracy called the Federal Cycling Administration for this.

The FAA and its predecessor where created early in the 20th century during the time in which the PROGRESSIVES in our country were riding roughshod over our Constitution by making all sorts of agencies, rules, and laws to "protect us" from ourselves and others. All of which have had the net result of decreasing our freedoms and removed us from the responsibility of many of our actions.
Yes, Im sure the fact that the airplane started seeing regular use in the early 20th century had absolutely nothing to do with the FAA being created around that time. It was clearly a government conspiracy.

That you can compare flying an airplane or helicopter to riding a bicycle in terms of difficulty (or danger to other people) implies to me that you have never attempted to fly either one. Not all "government regulation" is inherently bad, simply for having the word "government" in it. In some cases, some regulation can be a good or needed thing, as long as it doesnt try to infringe on any areas the constitution says "no no" to. And im sorry, asking someone to prove they have the necessary skill or ability to safely operate an aircraft, or even a car, before turning them lose on the roads in what is essentially a deadly weapon on wheels (or wings) does not infringe on anyones right of free travel. If California said "you cant enter our state unless you vote democrat", that would be infringing on someones right of free travel.

Just think regarding the FDA--- Aspirin has been a staple in the medications for its ability to reduce fever, decrease pain, and reduce the risk of Heart Attack. But it does have some serious problems when used by certain persons, probably the most severe being anaphylaxic reactions in those with allergy to Aspirin. Aspirin would NEVER make it through the system imposed at present by the FDA all in the framework of "protecting" us.

Ok, I'm ranting---- rant over and its is time I do something else.
There are many medications "making it through the system imposed by the FDA" all the time that have far more serious side effects than Aspirin, so your argument is inherently flawed there.
 
#37 ·
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

"The right to travel is protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."

"Right to travel is constitutionally protected against private as well as public encroachment."

Now can we get back on track and discuss the issue this posting is supposed to be discussing, ie Rules of OC.
 
#38 ·
gravedancer said:
JoeSparky said:
That is what the training wheels on the bicycle are for.... until you get enough knowledge and experience about maintaining balance and control so you don't injure yourself or others or damage property.
We don't have a huge federal bureaucracy called the Federal Cycling Administration for this.

The FAA and its predecessor where created early in the 20th century during the time in which the PROGRESSIVES in our country were riding roughshod over our Constitution by making all sorts of agencies, rules, and laws to "protect us" from ourselves and others. All of which have had the net result of decreasing our freedoms and removed us from the responsibility of many of our actions.
Yes, Im sure the fact that the airplane started seeing regular use in the early 20th century had absolutely nothing to do with the FAA being created around that time. It was clearly a government conspiracy.

That you can compare flying an airplane or helicopter to riding a bicycle in terms of difficulty (or danger to other people) implies to me that you have never attempted to fly either one. Not all "government regulation" is inherently bad, simply for having the word "government" in it. In some cases, some regulation can be a good or needed thing, as long as it doesnt try to infringe on any areas the constitution says "no no" to. And im sorry, asking someone to prove they have the necessary skill or ability to safely operate an aircraft, or even a car, before turning them lose on the roads in what is essentially a deadly weapon on wheels (or wings) does not infringe on anyones right of free travel. If California said "you cant enter our state unless you vote democrat", that would be infringing on someones right of free travel.

Just think regarding the FDA--- Aspirin has been a staple in the medications for its ability to reduce fever, decrease pain, and reduce the risk of Heart Attack. But it does have some serious problems when used by certain persons, probably the most severe being anaphylaxic reactions in those with allergy to Aspirin. Aspirin would NEVER make it through the system imposed at present by the FDA all in the framework of "protecting" us.

Ok, I'm ranting---- rant over and its is time I do something else.
There are many medications "making it through the system imposed by the FDA" all the time that have far more serious side effects than Aspirin, so your argument is inherently flawed there.
Gravedancer, I did not compare the difficulties of either one. Both are learned behaviors/skills (regarding operating a bicycle vs airplane/helocopter).

What I failled to adequately communicate is this----- What is our reaction when one suggests a minimum skill 'mandate' by government on our 2nd amendment rights before one is able acquire or carry. Yet, we accept without too much argument the government claim that driving a car/truck is a privelege as the piloting of most aircraft/helecopters (I am a licsensed Private Single Engine Land Pilot with a little bit of logged dual time in a gyrocopter). None of us decrie training, just the government mandate to get the training and demonstrate certain skills.

While I am licensed to operate a motorvehicle and do so regularly, I will not attempt to hitch up a team of horses to the carriage and proceed down the road (even though no license is required "yet" for this). I don't have the training or skills needed to safely control the team or the carriage. I am sure I could develop the needed skills with some training.
 
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