BCI Catching Up!

2028 Views 14 Replies 10 Participants Last post by steelhawk, Mar 30, 2009

tapehoser

Discussion Starter · Nov 15, 2007

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2157716

Gun Permits Flowing Again
November 15th, 2007 @ 7:43am

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- The state agency that issues concealed gun permits has caught up with a backlog of more than 10,000 applicants. Utah has what gun rights supporters call the most sought-after weapon permit in America.

Nearly half of the 28,000 permits issued this year will go to out-of-state residents. Utah has issued more than 100,000 concealed gun permits since the program began in the early 1990s.

Ed McConkie, chief of the Bureau of Criminal Identification, says that some rule changes, including one that allows the BCI to keep the fees it collects for concealed weapon permits, has allowed the agency to catch up on its backlog of background checks.

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

Cinhil

· #2 · Nov 15, 2007

That is great news. Now that the backlog is moving, perhaps things may be able to be taken a step further, probably at the legislative level, and denials of non-violent, non-criminal individuals, whose only crime may be that they are/were involved in a divorce, where the only reason for denial of a ccw is that the opposing spouse, in spite has filed restraining orders based on lies, may be able to obtain their ccw.
It happens all too frequently, and a denial, or loss of one's Rights, ought never to occur when they have never been convicted of a crime, a crime of violence, or have no criminal history--only a slanderous, un-documented accusation in order to restrain the other party. This is so wrong! It is a problem which needs to be severely addressed.

:evil:

Car Knocker

· #3 · Nov 15, 2007

That would have to be changed on the national level, I believe - Lautenberg Amendment.

Cinhil

· #4 · Nov 15, 2007

You are probably correct however, I personally feel the Lautenberg Amendment violates constitutional rights, and have seen how it affects many innocent people on a daily basis. I am certain it has been the cause of much harm, physically & emotionally. It is an evil law and ought to come off of the books. But you are correct in stating that it would have to be changed at the national level, or at the very least the SCOTUS should look closely at it and do their job by striking it down, along with several others, as it does violate constitutional & inviolate God-given freedoms.

Car Knocker

· #5 · Nov 15, 2007

The courts had a chance with United States vs Emerson but that went nowhere.

althor

· #6 · Nov 15, 2007

I too am against the Lautenberg Ammendment, but I'm against the pre-ammended version of GCA '68 and the FFA '38 before it. Then there is GCA '86, and NFA '37... that one cost me $200 and I'd love to see that go away.

Personally I feel that restricting felons from possessing and purchasing firearms once their sentences are complete is a violation of constitutional rights. If longer/harsher sentences are warranted then so be it, but there are too many non-violent crimes and other crimes classified as felonies that should not be.

Then there's the 4473...

And I neet a permit to conceal...!

I'm in a bad mood, I guess I don't like much of anything today.

Cinhil

· #7 · Nov 16, 2007

+1 - A Big +1 on that!!!

bane

· #8 · Nov 16, 2007

althor said:
Personally I feel that restricting felons from possessing and purchasing firearms once their sentences are complete is a violation of constitutional rights. If longer/harsher sentences are warranted then so be it,

That's a very good point -- one I hadn't thought of before! I'll have to mull this concept over for a while, since it sounds like it has some merit.

It could be thought of it a different context... say, free speech, another individual Right. If I used that Right to slander someone, say by publishing absolute provable lies, or do something very dangerous, like crying "FIRE!" in a movie theater, my Rights can be suspended as I serve out the sentence imposed on my crime (that is, I can have my printing press taken away and/or get locked-up for a determined amount of time and effectively told when I can and can't talk and what I can and can't say). And yet, at the end of the day, once I have finished my sentence I am then released and can go out and buy a new printing press and decide if I want to do that again, or go to a theater and yell "FIRE!" -- my Rights would be restored to me.

Yeah, so why are my 2A Rights any different? If I had used my bare hands to assault someone, served my time, and were released, nobody would recommend my hands be cut off to prevent me from possibly assaulting someone again, right? What if I intentionally hit someone (not killing them) and was locked away for attempted murder... at the end of the day, would I never ever be allowed to drive again???

Of course, I don't know all the nuances to all of these "?"s... but it's certainly making me think!

See less See more

Car Knocker

· #9 · Nov 16, 2007

bane, one more thing for you to contemplate: the evolution of the felony through the years in this country. Felonies used to be heinous crimes - now kiting a check or growing a prescribed plant can be a felony. Misdemeanors seem to morph into felonies with distressing regularity.

Jeff Johnson

· #10 · Nov 16, 2007

I call that Felony Creep. Where more and more things that used to be misdemeanors become felonies. It's a very bad trend.

Tarzan1888

· #11 · Nov 16, 2007

althor said:
.....Personally I feel that restricting felons from possessing and purchasing firearms once their sentences are complete is a violation of constitutional rights. If longer/harsher sentences are warranted then so be it, but there are too many non-violent crimes and other crimes classified as felonies that should not be......

I have felt this way for some time.

The law was changed in 1938.

"The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited"

This was an attempt to further punish gangsters who the Feds were having a hard time catching for their real crimes and had to settle for things like tax evasion.

Tarzan

Snurd

· #12 · Mar 30, 2009

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm.... :thijack:
Getting back on track.....I'm glad they finally got caught up with the CCW's. Hopefully that means people will get their permits a little sooner.

UtahCFP

· #13 · Mar 30, 2009

mqondo said:
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm.... :thijack:
Getting back on track.....I'm glad they finally got caught up with the CCW's. Hopefully that means people will get their permits a little sooner.

Note the article is from November 15, 2007. :raisedbrow:

Snurd

· #14 · Mar 30, 2009

Oh snap..... :ack:

steelhawk

· #15 · Mar 30, 2009

GregInUtah said:
Resurrecting an old thread here. The second post caught my interest...

This all happened more than 10 years ago. But this past weekend he decided he wanted to buy a .22 rifle to take camping with his family this summer so he could have fun shooting with his boys. When he went to purchase it he was denied. He wondered why since he has never done anything wrong in his entire life. Unfortunately BCI wasn't open on the weekend so he has to wait until this afternoon to find out why he was denied.

The restraining order may still be in force without his being aware of it. He needs to go to BCI and find out why they denied his purchase. If it is only the restraining order, he and maybe his ex probably need to go to the courthouse and have it removed. It there is a domestic violence conviction in there somehow, he can get it expunged and be able to purchase a gun once it has been expunged. It costs a little money to do that, but not a lot.

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.