HB195

Well PW,

I just checked it over & like you I am not quite sure what to make of it. On the surface it could be decent however, $100 should be more like $200 I think.
Also there is argument that all human beings have rights which are God granted and above any constitution. This may be true but I also believe those rights are also subject to the constitutional recognition afforded individuals in the country of their origin. Therefore anyone who is not a U.S. Citizen does not have the same inherent rights we have because of our constitution, but they do have some basic rights as human beings. To allow illegal individuals the same rights which we as citizens enjoy is a slap in our face and essentially spits on us all and becomes a theft of rights not due an individual who is not of our country.
Now as for the bill, if I remember correctly, Mexico has extremely harsh laws regarding guns. For the most part you either need to be a Police Officer or Government agent or military to even have one or face serious consequences. (If I am wrong someone please correct me)
So on the surface this law would almost never be able to be applied to Mexican Nationals who are residing in the State of Utah, whether legal or illegal alien in status.
I think there could be too many problems with this though so I think I would vote NO on this legislation.

I hop eyou don't mind, I did some editing for clarity in your version:

-------

I have serious concerns for HB195 titled "CONCEALED FIREARM PERMIT AMENDMENTS", and I would encourage you to vote NO on this amendment.

I do not feel that this amendment would be beneficial to the citizens of Utah and feel that it would grant rights not authorized to resident aliens or illegal aliens. Rights are the benefits of citizenship and should not be extended to those who are not citizens. To do so would be a slap in our faces and would create more problems and issues than this amendment would solve. I feel it is poorly worded and not well thought out and again encourage you to vote NO.

Thanks you for your time in this very important matter.

------

I just sent this off to my state representatives.

I think Cinhil makes a good point, and one I too was considering and that is: that there is a distinct and IMPORTANT distinction between INHERENT Rights and CITIZEN's Rights.

Like PW, I *USED* to think that illegals should have *NO* rights. But that view is fraught with moral as well as legal problems. B/C, if indeed illegals should have NO rights, then are we allowed to murder them since they have no right to life??? What about assaulting them and stealing their vehicle and other personal property, since they have no right to property? What about enslaving them as personal servants/slaves because they have no right to liberty??? The problems are TOO immense when one attempts to deny illegals their INHERENT rights.

OTOH, the distinction of CITIZEN's Rights permits us to deny them rights which are enjoyed as a by-product of our Government, since they have chosen of their own accord to not participate in. These rights include things such as voting, subsidized medical care, social security, etc. Illegals ABSOLUTELY should be denied these types of rights since they have not participated in our system of government; we should not be asked to support them when they are not supporting us.

Which is why, IMHO, the accurate view on this issue of illegal's obtaining a CC permit is that the 2A Rights are INHERENT Rights, thus illegals should have the right to self-defense until they demonstrate that they cannot be trusted to be safe with a firearm. *BUT* our government should NOT subsidize their application for the permit -- thus, the cost should be significantly more than is charged to a Citizen -- in fact, the cost should at least be equal to the cost determined to administer the program for that one person.

In this way we respect their INHERENT rights without supporting their choice to not participate in our system of gov't.

I'm in strong agreement with bane, with one caveat that causes me to come to an opposite conclusion.

I am firmly of the opinion that people are people, and all of them have the full measure of natural, god-given rights regardless of where their parents happen to live. It doesn't matter if their own country doesn't properly guarantee those rights, our country was established for exactly that purpose. Early on in our country's history the Alien and Sedition Acts tested whether or not the founders applied the same freedoms to all men, citizen or alien, and they did, and so should we.

Now the caveat: If we assume that the way we handle concealed weapons carry for citizens is correct, then I don't think we can issue CFPs to aliens, whether legal or not. Our legislators apparently believe that only individuals who have demonstrated a certain level of trustworthiness should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, and that trustworthiness is evaluated by a review of the applicant's history.

How do we check the history of even a legal immigrant, much less an illegal one? Can we get access to the police records of their nation of origin? Even if we can, do those records tell as much about their history as similar records in the USA tell?

IMO, if we assume that the background checks are important, and proper, then aliens can't be granted CFPs. Even naturalized citizens should probably be required to have a certain number of years residency to give them a chance to establish their trustworthiness.

I think this is a tough issue. I like what bane said:
"Which is why, IMHO, the accurate view on this issue of illegal's obtaining a CC permit is that the 2A Rights are INHERENT Rights, thus illegals should have the right to self-defense until they demonstrate that they cannot be trusted to be safe with a firearm. *BUT* our government should NOT subsidize their application for the permit -- thus, the cost should be significantly more than is charged to a Citizen -- in fact, the cost should at least be equal to the cost determined to administer the program for that one person.
In this way we respect their INHERENT rights without supporting their choice to not participate in our system of gov't."

Lets charge them $5000 a pop.

I also really liked swilden's point:
"Now the caveat: If we assume that the way we handle concealed weapons carry for citizens is correct, then I don't think we can issue CFPs to aliens, whether legal or not. Our legislators apparently believe that only individuals who have demonstrated a certain level of trustworthiness should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, and that trustworthiness is evaluated by a review of the applicant's history."

I don't know that we would all agree that permits are handled correctly and I don't know that I want to get in that discussion but for sake of arguement lets say that we accept the permit process as is and are all OK with it. I would then say that the illegals would not qualify for a permit because though they may not have been convicted of any felonies or crimes of moral turpitude, the simple act of them being in the USA is a disqualifying crime to begin with IMO. They have already demonstarted through their illegal actions that they are not trustworthy. (That seems harsh, but hey...)

I am against (I think) but only because the whole illegal situation pisses me off to begin with and I think allowing them to get permits only moves us in the opposite direction of where I would like to see the illegal problem go. Yes they do have an inherent right to self defense, but I say when you are here illegally you don't get that right. Go home and excercise you God given rights legally.

So what say yea? For or Against?

bane said:

....illegals should have the right to self-defense until they demonstrate that they cannot be trusted to be safe with a firearm.

Click to expand...

Such as, perhaps, a criminal record? As I said before, illegals are criminals. Criminals don't get CFP permits. Even if we ignore that infraction, we don't have a reliable system to check their background for other crimes. Swillden has already pointed this out.

I guess I was a little harsh about "criminals don't have rights." I agree with what has been said about distinguishing between inherent human rights and rights of citizenship. IMHO, CFP permits, driver's licenses, and welfare programs are rights of citizenship. You could even call these "privileges," because they are given with a level of trust and responsibility. Abuse the system, and they are taken away. Too many tickets, lose your driver's license, etc. So I guess what I should have said is "criminals don't have privileges."

My letter to a legislator would likely read something like this:
Dear _______________,
This letter is to express my opposition to HB195, "CONCEALED FIREARM PERMIT AMENDMENTS."
This bill would grant privileges to illegal immigrants that should be reserved for citizens in good standing. In order to obtain a CFP, a US citizen must pass an FBI background check, ensuring a past free of criminal activity. Illegal immigrants cannot be subjected to such a background check, as no international agency can reliably provide information on a foreign national's background. The one thing we do know about them is that they have broken the law by entering the US.

To put it simply, illegal immigrants are criminals, and criminals cannot obtain CFP's.

Sincerely,
SGT T-Man
UTARNG

T-Man said:

As I said before, illegals are criminals.

Click to expand...

Only because we've chosen to call them criminals.

Good criminal law is based on the principle that behavior that damages others should be prohibited. Law that criminalizes reasonable, harmless behavior (e.g. owning a handgun in D.C.) is immoral, and while it certainly has legal force and often has significant real-world consequences, it has little to no moral force. I know that many here disagree with me, but I will never see a man looking for honest work to better feed his family as wrong, and I won't consider him a criminal even if the letter of the law says he is.

I'm neutral on whether or not background checks ought to be required for issuance of a CFP, but as long as that's the approach we're taking, then I think anyone who can pass the background check, showing they have no felonies, no evidence that they're a danger to others and no evidence of moral turpitude should be able to receive a CFP.

If the BCI can perform a background check by querying their country of origin, fine. If that sort of query costs more, then the applicant should bear that additional cost. If the BCI is unable to perform the background check, then the applicant should be denied.

Edited to fix typo.

swillden said:

If the BCI can perform a background check by querying their country of origin, fine. If that sort of query costs more, then the applicant should bear that additional cost. If the BCI is unable to perform the background check, then the applicant should be denied.

Click to expand...

I agree with this statement. However, In having experience with obtaining police records in foreign countries I can tell you that it is a simple matter to make the request, pay a fee, and have the records mail/transmitted to a receiving agency. The last time I did this the fee in the other country was $150. Perhaps have the applicant pay for their own records, or identify the countries you will accept records from and negotiate a cost for those countries. At that point, set the fee.

Let's also consider that BCI is required to issue a permit within a certain timeframe, and reserves the right to revoke if something turns up. There is no provision, that I see, that says they must receive a response from the other country before they will issue the permit. This leaves open the possibility of someone obtaining a permit, purchasing firearms for which they are now not required to have a background check, and later (perhaps months) have their permit revoked. I don't know if I like that idea.

I must say, as well, that we may be focusing on a particular set of non-resident aliens with which we are most familiar. However, consider a university student who has come to the UofU to attend medical school from another country. This person is a non-resident alien and should be allowed the right of self protection if they can meet the requirements.

Having said that, however, I also know how easy it is to get a "clear" police record from many countries.

Let me also add a general impression of what I see in this bill:
They are removing the plurality from the law (types to type, firearms to firearm), and could be setting this up for licensure using specific weapons like Clark County, I believe.

Cinhil said:

Well PW,

I just checked it over & like you I am not quite sure what to make of it. On the surface it could be decent however, $100 should be more like $200 I think.
Also there is argument that all human beings have rights which are God granted and above any constitution. This may be true but I also believe those rights are also subject to the constitutional recognition afforded individuals in the country of their origin. Therefore anyone who is not a U.S. Citizen does not have the same inherent rights we have because of our constitution, but they do have some basic rights as human beings. To allow illegal individuals the same rights which we as citizens enjoy is a slap in our face and essentially spits on us all and becomes a theft of rights not due an individual who is not of our country.
Now as for the bill, if I remember correctly, Mexico has extremely harsh laws regarding guns. For the most part you either need to be a Police Officer or Government agent or military to even have one or face serious consequences. (If I am wrong someone please correct me)
So on the surface this law would almost never be able to be applied to Mexican Nationals who are residing in the State of Utah, whether legal or illegal alien in status.
I think there could be too many problems with this though so I think I would vote NO on this legislation.

Click to expand...

HB 195 wasn't intended to extend Second Amendment self protection rights to persons who are ILLEGALLY in the United States but rather to persons legally in the United States as vistors, on business trips, temporary work visas, etc.

Criminals do not differentiate among victims and don't care what nationality they are. I don't see why qualified Canadians with no criminal record should not be allowed the tools to defend themselves and their families against assault, bodily harm & death.

I am a Canadian and Canadian criminal records are as easy to check by Utah BCI (the agency that issues CFPs) as are records from California, Alaska or any US state. I am a LEO in Canada.

I hold several CCW permits from various jurisdictions in the United States (Utah CFP, Pennsylvania License To Carry Firearms, New Hampshire Pistol/Revolver License, Maine Non-Resident Permit To Carry Concealed Firearms).

I don't expect Utah tax payers to carry me and have no problem paying $100 or $200 for the use of YOUR resources & infrastructure to process my permit.

I am a Life Member of the NRA (American NRA) and a Life Member of Gun Owners Of America. I belong to 3 United States Shooting Clubs in Utah, Pennsylvania & New Hampshire and shoot at them quite often.

The anti gun movement is an international, global movement spearheaded by powerful people & organizations like George Soros and the United Nations. The Brady Bunch and the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control just love it when American & Canadian gun owners divide against each other for national & ethnic reasons. The more wedges driven between different factions of gun owners, the better for them, it makes their job, which is to disarm us all, much easier. They can just sit back and watch us defeat each other.

Together we stand, divided we fall.

Checking into this extensively with a Canadian friend in the military, here are some points to clarify:

1. This bill is not to allow criminals or illegals to get permits. It is about law abiding visiting Canadian (primarily) shooters just like you with two eyes, two legs, etc, who love shooting and travel.. Note: These guys already have a Canadian Federal firearms license and a US Form 6 permit form our ATF. Further, any of us Yankees can get a Canadian firearms permit. I have one. That is how neighbors and allies treat each other. 8)

2. BCI has been permitting Canucks for nearly ten years now with never a problem.

3. BCI has 24 hour online access to CPIC (the equivalent of NICS) and it costs them nothing.

4. Canucks already can carry a loaded firearm in their car, and open carry in parts of Utah. What we are talking about here is letting them wear a jacket in exchange for us having all their information on file and the assurance that they have been trained the way we want them to conduct themselves.

5. Canucks have other state permits and can carry in Utah anyway even if we prohibit them from obtaining our permit. They want ours because it is the best.

6. There are several good court opinions including a recent; US District Court, Kentucky v. Say that establishes legal aliens, who are entitled by Federal law to have firearms should be afforded permits and licenses. Any exclusionary arrogance that a Canadian human should not be able to protect his family or self against criminal attack is un-american IMHO. If you vacation in Canada would in not be nice to carry? Indiana honors the permit of any State or county. That is as amercian as apple pie.

7. BCI illegally halted permitting about a year ago. This was going to fix it. Sadly court action is being pursued by several organization who are unhappy about this and other issues with BCI. That is not good!

8. Thousands of Canadians are NRA members. As Pricedo said this is a global issue. If we don't hang together now we will hang seperately later.

9. I believe this could turn into a great thing for Utah. Florida has obtained millions of dollars of outside revenue from issuing their permit to non-residents. I would love to have non-residents pouring money into our state. that keeps more coin in my pocket.

10. I have a Canadian friend in the military. he holds a top secret security clearance and is fighting side by side in Afganistan with our boys. he was denied a Utah permit when BCI illegally, and without fair warning, shut it down. Now for the rest of his life, when he applies for any kind of firearms permit he will be asked; "Have you ever had an application denied?". He is now marked for life and he had to pay Utah for that favor and got no refund. Some bureaucrats suck! :x Rant over.

"A people of sheep will produce a government of wolves."