Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi everybody, I am new here to the forum. I have a question, How long does it take to get your concealed carry permit? I turned in my app., fingerprints, and photos on Oct 13 but I havn't heard or seen a thing. Is this normal? Should I be worried that it got lost in the mail? If I don't get anything who do I contact? Thanks for answering.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
Just a few years ago, I hand-delivered my application and got my permit 10 days later.

However, from what I've heard lately, BCI is getting behind because of the increased volume without any increased budget. It appears that they aren't getting the permits out within the required time. I would advise you to be patient.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
The state has a maximum of 60 days to get the permit to you. I just took a concealed carry course and the instructor said they are taking the full 60 days right now. So if you don't get it by December 13 (or a few days after), then give them a call.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
Just FYI: the wait time that ebrinton quoted is not calendar days (2 months), but rather 60 business days (argh!).

There is some talk in the gun community that this abnormally long wait is somehow politically oriented and intended to thumb a nose at the applicants and gun community.

It would seem more reasonable to believe that it is due to an increased number of applicants. The theory behind this is that Utah permits are the most widely accepted and therefore desired by out of state residents. I have reason to believe this as they are teaching the Utah courses in many other states (including California!). I think it would be wise, if there is not more funding available, to charge non-Utah-residents a steeper fee to process their applications. This would raise more money for BCI and speed up the process for all of us "in-staters". Just a thought...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
The Utah House has passed HB39 and it's now in the State Senate. The funding problem for the BCI has not been that the fees for the CFP are too low, it's that the fees have gone into general state coffers, and the BCI gets a budget amount (which hasn't been enough to get the permits out on a timely basis).

This bill will fix that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
I did know that the money for the CFP went into state coffers, that wasn't 'really' the point I was trying to make. The point is here: the Utah BCI is a state organization and should serve the state; should permits be made available to non-residents, the BCI should be able to charge an out-of-state fee in order to generate more revenue and keep up with their in-state 'clientèle'. They work for us (the public - through the State) and not for the residents of the other states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
289 Posts
And it sounds like you're missing my point. Charging a non-resident more for a permit won't change a thing... unless more money is budgeted for the BCI to hire enough people to do the work with permits.

The fee that the BCI collects now is sufficient to fund the program. But the total funds don't come back to the BCI. They just get a budget, which is not based on how many permits they issue, either resident or non-resident.

But the legislature is working on a bill that will do something about that. Charging more for a non-resident permit is a whole different ballgame, and not related to the time it takes to get a permit issued.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
Why are we falling for the Anti's hype? It is the Media and Gun control crowd who want to make the Utah permit harder to get, starting with the Non-Residents and then moving to Residents. They seem to have convinced a lot of CFP holders in the state to join their quest. Blame the Non-residents. Then they can start blaming the folks they are really after: anyone who carries.

Think back folks... The news media started telling the Sheeple that the CFP was too easy to get, it is too cheap, then they told us it was the fact it was too cheap that the system is backed up and if we would charge more it would fix everything. Start charging the Non- Residents and then raise the price to Residents. One step at a time. A right needs to be paid for and the higher the price here the better. That way the riff raff will stay in their place and behave...

The fee they charge now would cover the actual costs if the fees were being left with the BCI.

FYI, I am pretty sure that BCI is not trying to slow down the process. As far as I can tell, the folks working with the CFP's are doing their very best with such limited funds. $88,000 doesn't go far when the "take" is over half a mil. (Clark may have to correct me on specific $$ amounts here..)

Sorry for the rant, but this is a big pet peeve of mine. The push to make the CFP harder to get, more $$$ and control where you can carry (ie U of U, Churches) Make it as worthless as they can and they don't need to make it illegal.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,563 Posts
GeneticsDave said:
the Utah BCI is a state organization and should serve the state; should permits be made available to non-residents, the BCI should be able to charge an out-of-state fee in order to generate more revenue and keep up with their in-state 'clientèle'.
Shafting out-of-state gun owners is good? Tripling the non-resident fees, under the present system, wouldn't put a single extra cent in the BCI budget. It would just prevent some non-residents from getting a CFP. I don't consider that as something to aspire to.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
OK, I know that the BCI gets a certain amount of funding. I know that the bill will keep more money with the BCI than they now receive. I am all for the bill. There are a lot of people out there that want permits and I personally think that the BCI is working very hard with what they have. I forgot to put that in my last post.

My previous post was meant to convey the idea that Utah applicants should have priority in their own state. If the number of applicants floods the system and it gets bogged down due to the immensely large number of non-resident applicants, something needs to be done. Even with the new bill, there may not be enough money to hire more people, etc. whatever it takes to get the permits out in a more timely manner. For all I know there is a hold up on the federal end.

Anyways, the point was that there could be some real money made here by charging the non-residents more - if BCI were to obtain that extra money. This could permit BCI to expand and become a better service to us, while perhaps cutting down on the number of non-resident applicants.

I personally think that people should obtain permits in their state first and then apply for an out-of-state permit afterward if so desired. Why have two permits? Because you are not a Utah resident. Support your own state program and do something productive about it if it sucks, don't just cop out and apply for a Utah permit because it is more widely accepted than your own - that's just my opinion. Granted, if I lived out of state and my permit was crappy, I would want a Utah permit, however, I would work to make my permit better.

Anyways, I understand that some of you may not agree, I'm just not happy about waiting for 60 business days to get my permit - I just don't think it should take that long and I would be in favor of almost any action that would be useful in speeding up the process.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
I'll respond to one of the points you raised ... that about how people should get their own states' permits before applying for a Utah permit.

First, many people do just that. It is not uncommon for many people to apply for permits in multiple states in order to maximize the number of states in which they can carry (and yes, Utah's permit is high on that list because of the number of states in which our permits are good).

Second, many people apply for Utah permits because they live in states where it is impossible for them to get a carry permit. At least with a Utah permit, they can carry in many states, if not their own.

Utah has a good permit. Let's not ruin it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
GeneticsDave said:
I didn't know that there were states that didn't have their own permits but accepted Utah permits. That's interesting.
Dude! He didn't say that their state accepted the Utah permit.

I think that he's saying that people who's state do not issue permits are likely to get a Utah permit (especially if they travel outside of their home state for business ext.) because it's accepted in most of the states to which they may travel. 8)

Nobody likes extended waiting periods. especially those from the superficial, instant gratification, me me me generation. Just have a little patients because the funding is being fixed now & the staffing will follow. :wink:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
Mr. Magnum said:
GeneticsDave said:
I didn't know that there were states that didn't have their own permits but accepted Utah permits. That's interesting.
Dude! He didn't say that their state accepted the Utah permit.

I think that he's saying that people who's state do not issue permits are likely to get a Utah permit (especially if they travel outside of their home state for business ext.) because it's accepted in most of the states to which they may travel. 8)

Nobody likes extended waiting periods. especially those from the superficial, instant gratification, me me me generation. Just have a little patients because the funding is being fixed now & the staffing will follow. :wink:
Umm. What he said.

Some people cannot get permits from their own states, because those are no-issue or may-issue states, unlike Utah which is a shall-issue state. If people who live in anti-gun states want a permit that will allow them to defend themselves while on the road in states other than their own, then the Utah permit is a good one.

Let's keep the Utah permit a good one. We can fix the root of the problem (which is the way BCI is funded) without hurting other people.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top