Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This interesting item was emailed to all of the instructors on the BCI list today.

Firearms Instructors:

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Wes Hutchins. I am an attorney practicing in Salt Lake City since 1993. I recently became a handgun owner and went through the firearms training course to obtain my concealed firearms permit. I enjoyed the course immensely, and it peaked my interest in Utah laws governing the use of firearms.

The purpose of this email is to inform you of a change in the Utah Administrative Code that previously purported to mandate that permit holders, if stopped by a police officer, must inform the officer that they are a permit holder and that they are either armed, or unarmed. (Hereinafter referred to as the "Inform Requirement"; see Utah Administrative Code R722-300-12)(I say "purported to mandate" since there is a dispute whether or not admin rules rise to the level of enforceable "law" -- a debate beyond the scope of this email).

I have conducted considerable research into the issue, and have learned that the Inform Requirement, along with all other provisions under the Admin Code pertaining to concealed firearms, no longer exist. That's right, they are not current law in Utah, as of approximately May of 2008. I am confident informing you of this change in the law for the following reasons:

(1) If you research the Utah Administrative Code online (you can run a Google search to see all the different references), the website identifying the "effective" provisions no longer lists R722-300-1 through -17 (example: go to http://www.rules.utah.gov/main and then go to "Public Safety" section, link to Title 722, and it will give you the rules "As in effect on May 1, 2008," and R722-300-1 et seq. is not among them);

(2) If you go to the Department of Public Safety website (http://das.utah.gov.main) and go to Concealed Weapons, then click on Concealed Firearm Law and Rule References (under General Information), and then click on Concealed Firearm Rule (third from the bottom), it then "thinks" for a minute or two and gives you a "File Not Found" screen; and

(3) I have spoken to individuals at DPS and at the Utah Administrative offices, all of whom confirm that the Concealed Firearm Permit Rule, including the Inform Requirement, is not presently in effect.

Interestingly, as part of my recent research, I have learned that DPS is in the process of promulgating a new rule - one which is apparently going to close the gap that presently allows out-of-state and even foreign individuals to obtain their permits in Utah. Nobody has been able to tell me if the new proposed rule will resurrect the Inform Requirement, or some version thereof, but I suspect it will. There will be a 30-day public comment period on the proposed rule, once it is presented to Utah Administrative Services. Whatever your position is on the Inform Requirement, I encourage you to exercise your freedom of speech and let it be known. You can review and comment on new admin rules by getting on the Admin Services website at and follow link to Administrative Rules, then to Proposed Rules. That takes you to the Utah State Bulletin, and if you go to the bottom of that page you can subscribe to be notified of any changes to the Bulletin.

Most of you may already be aware of the current status of the Inform Requirement, and further aware of all the foregoing resources for information. I apologize for any redundancy. My goal is to help inform folks of the change, and to encourage healthy debate on the issue when the new proposed rule comes out. One thing is for sure - it's going to be interesting!

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, or if I might be able to provide you with any additional information, feel free to respond to this email, or to contact me at my office. Also, feel free to forward this email on to anyone in your "network" that you believe may be interested in these issues. If you would like more information about me or our law offices, you can visit our firm's website at http://www.scalleyreading.com.

Have a great day!

Best regards,

Wesley D. Hutchins
SCALLEY READING BATES
HANSEN & RASMUSSEN, P.C.
Beneficial Tower
15 West South Temple, Suite 600
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
(801) 531-7870 (voice line)
(801) 531-7968 (facsimile)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Does anyone see any inherent major problem with the inform requirement (at least, in it's earlier version)??? I never did and without more information would be just fine supporting it -- after all, I would rather a LEO know about my status before-hand rather than find out about it half-way through the encounter and get worried.

That being said, I wish any new requirement had some sort of additional provision which also gives us SOME FORM of protection/courtesy extended to us for following this rule (no idea how feasible it would be legally OR practically, though)... like stating in black-and-white that rather than disarm the individual, the officer should instead request the individual stand outside of their car with their back to the officer and their hands on the trunk of their car... something like that, something reasonable to help the officer feel safer and better-prepared to react if you go squirrely on him... but something that doesn't bar him from disarming you if he feels he needs to, just lets him know that the recommended standard is to go the other route...

Hopefully that made sense. Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that I support the inform requirement as a way of helping the officer know what he's dealing with... I just wish it also extended a courtesy to us for complying.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,167 Posts
I can see Bane's point. However, I don't really see how it's anyone's business whether I am armed. If I am being detained on suspicion of a crime then yes, feel free to ask. If I was speeding or didn't come to a complete stop at the last stop sign, let's just get on with the ticket and be done with it. For traffic violations/infractions, it doesn't seem as reasonable to make the firearm a significant issue.

Now I know that routine traffic stops are the "most dangerous" thing a LEO can do and I respect their desire to stay safe - the last thing I want is for an innocent to be hurt. But we can go way too far in violating rights just to ensure safety - and even then, safety is not ensured. Just have a look at the Patriot Act if you don't believe me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
GeneticsDave said:
I can see Bane's point. However, I don't really see how it's anyone's business whether I am armed. If I am being detained on suspicion of a crime then yes, feel free to ask. If I was speeding or didn't come to a complete stop at the last stop sign, let's just get on with the ticket and be done with it. For traffic violations/infractions, it doesn't seem as reasonable to make the firearm a significant issue.

Now I know that routine traffic stops are the "most dangerous" thing a LEO can do and I respect their desire to stay safe - the last thing I want is for an innocent to be hurt. But we can go way too far in violating rights just to ensure safety - and even then, safety is not ensured. Just have a look at the Patriot Act if you don't believe me.
:agree:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,091 Posts
Tell me is the guy carrying illegally going to have to inform the LEO. Why pick on the honest ones, but not the BG. This new ruling is so one sided.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
I'm told by Clark Aposhian not to get excited over the rule changes. He says that although the rule to notify has lapsed, it's just an administrative delay kind of thing while it is put back into place. There were portions of those rules having to do with issuance of CFPs to foreign nationals that had weren't applicable anymore, and so the rules did a sunset thing. The rule to notify will be reinstated.

So, don't get out of the habit of notifying the officer of your carry status if you get pulled over...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
GeneticsDave said:
I can see Bane's point. However, I don't really see how it's anyone's business whether I am armed. If I am being detained on suspicion of a crime then yes, feel free to ask. If I was speeding or didn't come to a complete stop at the last stop sign, let's just get on with the ticket and be done with it. For traffic violations/infractions, it doesn't seem as reasonable to make the firearm a significant issue.

Now I know that routine traffic stops are the "most dangerous" thing a LEO can do and I respect their desire to stay safe - the last thing I want is for an innocent to be hurt. But we can go way too far in violating rights just to ensure safety - and even then, safety is not ensured. Just have a look at the Patriot Act if you don't believe me.
Agreed.

If you feel that you would rather personally tell the officer of your armed status, feel free to do so. I don't see why there should be a law requiring everyone else to do so as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,822 Posts
What is the rule if you are a passenger, not the driver??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
In the two CCW classes I've been to the instructor said that unless the cop is asking for your ID, or asking you to step out of the car or dealing with you directly then there is no need to inform him of your CCW or carry status.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
Thanks Jeff!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
xRapidDavex said:
What is the rule if you are a passenger, not the driver??
Unless a passenger is specifically being targeted by an officer there is no need or requirement to show your ccw. You don't have to even mention it. In fact, it is probably best, in most instances to keep quite, let the officer write his/her citation or warning and keep any conversation at the time limited with your driver.
If you are asked to step out of the vehicle and are a passenger then you too are being targeted and ought to show your id at that time, or at the least mention you have one before exiting. When this happens you, as a passenger, are also being detained.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
GeneticsDave said:
I can see Bane's point. However, I don't really see how it's anyone's business whether I am armed. If I am being detained on suspicion of a crime then yes, feel free to ask. If I was speeding or didn't come to a complete stop at the last stop sign, let's just get on with the ticket and be done with it. For traffic violations/infractions, it doesn't seem as reasonable to make the firearm a significant issue.

Now I know that routine traffic stops are the "most dangerous" thing a LEO can do and I respect their desire to stay safe - the last thing I want is for an innocent to be hurt. But we can go way too far in violating rights just to ensure safety - and even then, safety is not ensured. Just have a look at the Patriot Act if you don't believe me.
I agree with Dave on this one.

Tarzan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
GeneticsDave said:
I can see Bane's point. However, I don't really see how it's anyone's business whether I am armed. If I am being detained on suspicion of a crime then yes, feel free to ask. If I was speeding or didn't come to a complete stop at the last stop sign, let's just get on with the ticket and be done with it. For traffic violations/infractions, it doesn't seem as reasonable to make the firearm a significant issue.

Now I know that routine traffic stops are the "most dangerous" thing a LEO can do and I respect their desire to stay safe - the last thing I want is for an innocent to be hurt. But we can go way too far in violating rights just to ensure safety - and even then, safety is not ensured. Just have a look at the Patriot Act if you don't believe me.
:agree: But then I'm one of the people who thinks we don't need a permit to exercise our 2A rights and the CFP is a necessary evil at the moment. The problem is the permit and that it's tied to your license. So not having to notifying the officer yourself doesn't keep them from knowing that you likely have a concealed firearm. I think with new cops and tacticool :swat: cops I'd rather tell them upfront than have them see anything flashing on their computer about me. :nilly:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,252 Posts
Just an FYI - I confirmed with BCI that the Inform Requirement is not in effect as of right now - Here is my correspondence with Jaymee Eaquinto.
Jaymee Eaquinto
to me
show details 2:09 PM (1 hour ago)
Reply
>>> Phillip LEIKER 8/7/2008 11:39 AM >>>
Jared,

Yes you under stand it as being recommended & yes there is 30 days for public comment before the rules can go into effect

>>> Jaymee Eaquinto 8/7/2008 10:54 AM >>>

>>> Jared <jared> 8/7/2008 9:20 AM >>>
- Hide quoted text -
Thanks for the reply. So if I understand correctly, the rule is not in
effect; so it is not required, but is recommended to notify an officer if
stopped?

Will there be a public comment period to review the new rules before they
take effect?


On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 7:02 AM, Jaymee Eaquinto <[email protected]>wrote:

>
>
> >>> Phillip LEIKER 8/6/2008 5:47 PM >>>
> Jared,
>
> the rules are being rewritten, so as of now it is recommended that one
> should advise an officer if stopped.
>

> >>> Jaymee Eaquinto 8/5/2008 6:47 AM >>>
>
>
> >>> <jared> 8/5/2008 12:04 AM >>>
> From :
> jared
>
> Name :
> Jared
>
> Phone :
>
>
> Resident :
>
>
> Pertaining To: :
>
>
> Message :
> Hi, I noticed that the BCI rules were no longer posted, and
>
> it sparked a question in my mind. BCI has made a rule that
>
> a concealed permit holder must notify a Law Enforcement
> Officer that he/she is carrying a concealed weapon. I searc
>
> hed the state law for anything that gives BCI the authority
>
> to make a rule pertaining to firearms, and only found a
> section allowing BCI to make rules regarding the administrat
>
> ion of permits, not how a permit holder must act during a
> stop. Under Utah Code 53-5-704 section 13, it says: The
> commissioner may make rules in accordance with Title 63G,
> Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, necessary to
>
> administer this chapter.
>
> However, nothing indicates that BCI has the authority to
> regulate behavior during an encounter with law enforcement.
>
>
> I am admittedly not a scholar by any means, and even less
> so when it comes to legal code, but this seems to be pretty
>
> clear.
> Maybe I'm getting worked up over nothing, since I've heard
> a rumor that the rules were getting re-worked anyway, but
> if not, I'd appreciate some guidance on what authority BCI
> acts under making a rule pertaining to firearms.
> Thanks,
> Jared
>

>
> Division :
> Concealed Firearms
>
> Send :
> Send
>
> resident :
> Utah Resident
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,600 Posts
She didn't really make any attempt to answer your "authority" question... :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,757 Posts
bane said:
She didn't really make any attempt to answer your "authority" question... :?
I've wondered about this ever since I found out that the requirement to inform is a rule and not a law.

My one interaction with a police officer since getting my CFP was in Idaho. I didn't tell him I was carrying, because it's not required and it just seemed simpler all around if the issue didn't come up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,323 Posts
swillden said:
bane said:
She didn't really make any attempt to answer your "authority" question... :?
I've wondered about this ever since I found out that the requirement to inform is a rule and not a law.

My one interaction with a police officer since getting my CFP was in Idaho. I didn't tell him I was carrying, because it's not required and it just seemed simpler all around if the issue didn't come up.
And now for the time being you don't need to worry about it here.

Tarzan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,129 Posts
Are the proposed rules listed anywhere?
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top