[Paul]

The title of this proposed bill is "Firearms Amendments."

This bill:
13 . provides a definition for a concealed firearm permit that permits, but does not
14 require, the concealment of the firearm on the permittee; and
15 . makes certain technical changes.

Here is the proposed bill:
http://le.utah.gov/~2008/bills/hbillint/hb0473.htm

I like this bill. It has several things in it that I think are very positive. I especially like lines 31-51 as it reinforces that only the State can make laws governing our gun rights. It specifically states that a local authority or state entity, including schools, etc. can not restrict our gun rights including your possesion on their property.

The second thing I like is lines 83 and 84: "Concealed firearm permit" means a permit issued pursuant to Section 53-5-704 that permits, but does not require, concealment of the firearm on the permittee." This does not legally define our right to open carry, but it very much suggests that we have the right to open carry.

The definitions are also good. The "House of Worship" and "Readily accessible for immediate use" I thought were both good.

I didn't find anything in this bill that I disliked. I intend to email my representative and encourage them to sign this bill. What do you guys think? Anything in this that you don't like?

 

[Paul]

Here is my email text. You are welcome to copy it in any way you would like.

Dear ______

I am writing to express my support for HB473. As a concealed firearm permit holder, I feel that this proposed bill helps clarify and define my rights. I am especially pleased to see the State further codify into law the restriction that only the State Legislature can make laws governing the rights of concealed firearm permit holders. We have recently seen the University of Utah attempting to restrict the rights of gun owners, especially concealed firearm permit holders. With recent events on college campuses, the rights of students to legally defend themselves if needed should not be restricted or taken away. I would appreciate your full support on this bill. Thank you.

Sincerely,

 

[bane]

PW, I don't have time to go read the current law on the books to verify that this is true, so take it for what it's worth...

BUT, if I'm not mistaken, this law is [EDIT] NOT [/EDIT] a new law but just a MODIFIED version of one that is already on the books. I've read this law several times before. Much of what you commented on has not changed and is ALREADY law on the books. Again, if not mistaken, I believe the correct way to read this NEW version is to pay attention to sections which are UNDERLINED and STRUCK-THROUGH. Text which does not have those elements remains UNCHANGED from what is already on the books. The UNDERLINES and STRIKE-THROUGHS are what indicate NEW material.

Thus:

1) Lines 31-51 are not new in any way.

2) Lines 83 & 84 are in fact new, as evidenced by the UNDERLINING, and are in fact good b/c they not only infer OC rights but protect us against over-zealous idiots attempting to prosecute CC'ers for accidentally printing/showing.

3) The "DEFINITIONS" have not been changed in any way.

Essentially the ONLY thing new about this bill is the protection of CC'ers against accidental printing/showing. It's good, and it deserves our support, but it doesn't clarify or improve anything else.

 

[Paul]

PW, I don't have time to go read the current law on the books to verify that this is true, so take it for what it's worth...

BUT, if I'm not mistaken, this law is [EDIT] NOT [/EDIT] a new law but just a MODIFIED version of one that is already on the books. I've read this law several times before. Much of what you commented on has not changed and is ALREADY law on the books. Again, if not mistaken, I believe the correct way to read this NEW version is to pay attention to sections which are UNDERLINED and STRUCK-THROUGH. Text which does not have those elements remains UNCHANGED from what is already on the books. The UNDERLINES and STRIKE-THROUGHS are what indicate NEW material.

Thus:

1) Lines 31-51 are not new in any way.

2) Lines 83 & 84 are in fact new, as evidenced by the UNDERLINING, and are in fact good b/c they not only infer OC rights but protect us against over-zealous idiots attempting to prosecute CC'ers for accidentally printing/showing.

3) The "DEFINITIONS" have not been changed in any way.

Essentially the ONLY thing new about this bill is the protection of CC'ers against accidental printing/showing. It's good, and it deserves our support, but it doesn't clarify or improve anything else.

You are correct! I should probably change the text of my email

EDIT:
Maybe something like this:

Dear ___________

I am writing to express my support for HB473. I feel that the amendment to this law helps protect me as a concealed firearm permit holder. The right to openly carry a firearm should be protected. The fact that I have a concealed firearm permit should not require me to conceal my firearm. As a permit holder I should still be free to openly carry my firearm.

Sincerely,

 

[xmirage2kx]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2697080

 

[Guest]

http://progunleaders.org/

A bit off topic but a fascinating development. My heart swells with admiration for the state of Montana.

 

[Paul]

http://progunleaders.org/

A bit off topic but a fascinating development. My heart swells with admiration for the state of Montana.

That is absolutely awesome. I hope this gets agrued before the SC in some form. This is one of the absolute best arguements I have seen regarding the rights of individuals.

Basically Montanna is saying that the United States accepted their State Constitution when they entered the United States and that their State Constitution clearly protected the rights of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms. If the SC now decides that the 2A was meant as collective rights rather than individual, the contract between the US and Montanna has been violated because the US accepted Montannas constitution as defined and their constitution specifically says INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

I love it!!!!

 

[Cinhil]

For several hundred years now, since the original 13 colonies contracted individually with each other creating this nation, the rights of the state individually has been hotly debated. For most people knowledge of these contracts, which expressly allow each of these states the right to leave the union of states should federal government disobey its mandates, has been elusive, to say the least.

Massachusetts was the first state to be officially p.o.'d with the federal government and almost withdrew itself from the union but ended one vote shy of doing so. This was back in 1789 (I believe, or very close to it). Other states also nearly withdrew from the union for similar reasons concerning federal infringement or abuse. Finally the South, en-masse, did leave the union because of the egregious affronts occurring in the federal government. No need to mention how that turned out as often might does trump right.

So what does all this mean?

As far as Montana goes, if the SC decision comes out against individual rights the state could cry, "Contract Breach." Then could, if it chose, withdraw from the union. However, doing so would be devastating in many ways as the effects would be, and probably forcefully so, hotly contended against nation wide.

The truth is, the right of the individual to keep and bare arms IS a God-given right and any attempt to eliminate that, or make ownership the right of only the elitist state, or in this instance the country or federal government, would be wrong. This is what makes Keller vs DC such a volatile issue. If the suit wins in that esteemed court it speaks volumes for this right, if the case is struck down we can expect more evil to befall us as more and more of our rights, and our beloved constitution are stripped away from us.

So, what can we do to help all of this? I may not be wealthy, but I just sent some money to help in this fight for all of our rights. I did so through the NRA specifically for this purpose. Some may not like, or may disagree with the NRA (and yes, some of the things they have done I have been at odds with), but they are still the largest organization and best able to lend a good fighting chance to the success of this case. It may be a small amount to sacrifice but it is well worth it to me.

As regards the initial question I am all for HB 473!

 

[heavykevy]

I like the clarification provided by this bill on the lack of concealment requirement. I have sent an email to my representative urging his support of this bill. Thanks for keeping us apprised of important bills!

 

[Jeff Johnson]

PW, you need to read the bill correctly.
This is an amendment to existing statute.
The corrections are shown as underlined inserts or cross-outs at the link you gave.

It looks like other than changing a word from "Subsection" to "Section", the only other change (besides numbering) is this:

(3) "Concealed firearm permit" means a permit issued pursuant to Section 53-5-704
84 that permits, but does not require, concealment of the firearm on the permittee.

Good change!

 

[Ruger Collector]

I agree Jeff, good change!

 

[T-Man]

http://progunleaders.org/

A bit off topic but a fascinating development. My heart swells with admiration for the state of Montana.

I like it. My heart swells with pride for my new home also. I'm not encouraging secession yet (we'll see what the SCOTUS says first). All I'm saying for now is if the Confederate Republic of Montana is formed, all you wannabe illegal immigrants better stay on your own side of the border!!

 

[Paul]

http://progunleaders.org/

A bit off topic but a fascinating development. My heart swells with admiration for the state of Montana.

I like it. My heart swells with pride for my new home also. I'm not encouraging secession yet (we'll see what the SCOTUS says first). All I'm saying for now is if the Confederate Republic of Montana is formed, all you wannabe illegal immigrants better stay on your own side of the border!!

Some of us may want to legally become citizens of Montanna though...especially if we can own inexpesive machine guns... LOL