[MarshallDodge]

Since my wife has been waiting nearly 10 weeks for her permit I have mixed feelings about this:

By Lisa Riley Roche
Deseret News

As the number of concealed weapons permits issued by Utah continues to climb, public safety officials told lawmakers Wednesday it might be time to stop accepting applications from out-of-state......
http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700228064,00.html
(I would have liked to post the whole article but I had a hard time getting it to cut and paste)

I think they should charge more to out of state people and priority should be given to in state applications.

 

[Ruger Collector]

Gun permits shoot up
Reject applications from out of state, some say
By Lisa Riley Roche
Deseret News
Published: May 22, 2008
As the number of concealed weapons permits issued by Utah continues to climb, public safety officials told lawmakers Wednesday it might be time to stop accepting applications from out-of-state.
By the end of the year, Utah is projected to have issued more than 40,000 concealed weapons permits â€" nearly a 150 percent increase over 2007 and more than a 250 percent boost from 2006.

Slightly more than half of the permit applications received since the beginning of the budget year on July 1, 2007, have gone to Utahns. But since 1994, about two-thirds of the applications have come from out-of-state.

"This program has been growing by leaps and bounds," Lt. Doug Anderson, who runs the concealed weapons permit program for the Utah Department of Public Safety, told members of the Legislature's Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Interim Committee.

The increase in applications has boosted revenues from the program to about $1 million annually, up from a projected $600,000 or so. That's enabled the department to cut the time it takes to process an application from three months to just one, Anderson said.

But committee member Sen. Bill Hickman, R-St. George, was more interested in why the state was issuing concealed weapons permits to non-Utahns rather than simply relying on existing reciprocity agreements with other states.

Those agreements allow concealed weapons permits to be treated like a drivers license. For example, someone with a Utah driver's license may legally drive in other states just as someone with a license issued by another state may legally drive in Utah.

Public safety officials said the long-standing practice of issuing permits to non-Utahns has left them with problems, including policing out-of-state instructors teaching a required course to obtain the Utah permit. Some 70 percent of the Utah-certified instructors don't live here.

"We would welcome some clarification," Public Safety Commissioner Scott Duncan told the committee, reminding them the state has already stopped issue permits to non-U.S. residents last year for similar reasons.

He said any benefit to the state from issuing permits to non-Utahns "would be hard to know" when asked by another committee member, Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake, to come up with pluses of the program.

Later, Duncan said he's recommending the state stop issuing the permits to non-Utahns but the decision is up to lawmakers. "We'll do it any way they want us to do it," he said, adding, "I think we need to look out for our state first."

One of the strongest gun-rights advocates in the Legislature, Rep. Curt Oda, R-Clearfield, who also sits on the committee, said the question he would ask about issuing concealed weapons permits to non-Utahns is simply, "Why not?"

Oda said after the meeting that he would oppose eliminating out-of-state permits.

"An American is an American," he said. "I don't care if he's a New York American or a Utah American, as citizens we have rights."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think raising the out of state fees and/or giving them lower priority to resident applications wouldn't be unreasonable.

 

[GeneticsDave]

I agree that they shouldn't be stopped, but I do think it wise to increase the price and place them on a lower priority list. Our tax dollars go to help fund that program (AFAIK) and I think that means we should have some privileges that don't apply to people who don't contribute to that tax base.

 

[Cinhil]

I agree that they shouldn't be stopped, but I do think it wise to increase the price and place them on a lower priority list. Our tax dollars go to help fund that program (AFAIK) and I think that means we should have some privileges that don't apply to people who don't contribute to that tax base.

If I remember correctly, the fees were increased a year or so ago and BCI is now recieving all of the funds from this instead of dissemination from regular state tax coffers. Now I could be wrong, or there may be a mix--ie...some state tax monies budgeted to BCI and all of the fees collected going to BCI. I do agree that for out of state individuals the fee should be higher though. I do agree with Curt Oda though, We are all Americans and have rights which include the right to carry, especially if it can protect us from the government, or others bent on harming us, just as our Founding fathers envisioned.

 

[GeneticsDave]

The following post was made by utbagpiper over on OpenCarry.org and he requested that I post it here as well and encourage you all to call DPS and your legislators to oppose this needless infringement of RKBA.

I realize some consider concealed carry permits to be off topic, or even offensive here. I'll suggest we can either hang together, or hang seperately.

For the last couple of years, ever since the head of DPS was changed to Duncan a couple of years ago, that agency has failed to meet legislative mandates to issue permits on time. They have been looking for excuses for their own incompetence and unwillingness to do what they need to do.

Their favored scapegoat the last couple of years has been the issuance of carry permits to non-residents. Simply put, there is NO PROBLEM with this practice. Several other State issue permits to non-residents and NOBODY has a problem and no other State is even talking about restricting non-resident permits. Indeed, the trend nationwide is to make permits more available, to recognize more permits, and to generally be more respectful of RKBA.

PLEASE take a moment to call your State legislators, the governor's office, (full contact info for these government officials at
http://www.goutahorg.org) and even DPS Commissioner Duncan (at 801-965-4461, ask for the commissioner's officer) and let them know (politely but firmly) that you are tired of this kind of scapegoating and there is no reason to limit lawful self-defense for anyone. There is no reason to limit out of State permits.

We benefit GREATLY by the fact that there are 50,000 non-Utahns with Utah permits who have a vested interest in their home States honoring a Utah permit. Our tourism industry benefits from the fact that so many people know we respect their rights to an effective self-defense.

Charles

 

[usSiR]

I'm not sure who I was suppose to contact about this but I just emailed all the Senators and Reps. in weber county since I live in weber county.

I hope I will help!

 

[Jeff Johnson]

This is very disappointing.

I hope that everyone will join in by writing to their legislators to oppose this attempt to attack the RKBA. I think that utbagpiper made some very good points. Please don't think, just because you live in Utah, that this doesn't affect you. This is an attempt suppress the number of people able to carry for self-defense.

Dave, why don't you invite utbagpiper to join UCC as well?

 

[GeneticsDave]

I did, over on the OCDO thread, hopefully he takes me up on the offer.

 

[scuba_steve]

So here is what I am thinking. As all forum members know, they are NOT processing applications in one month. Yet, they brag about the **** efficiency of theirselves/ :evil: :twisted: I agree with the thought that out of state should receive lower priority plus...possibly...have an additional fee since they are not Utah tax payers.

 

[PetersenRD]

No offense to any out of state members of the forum, but I would agree that the fees should be higher for out of state applicants. When I travel out of state to do some fishing I pay more for a fishing license because I'm not a resident. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't apply in this situation. I'm okay with applications being processed in order of receipt, without regard to state of origin, but higher fees for out of state applicants seems fair.

Just my .02, but with the rate of inflation and the cost of gas it won't get you very far.

 

[usSiR]

So did anyone else write their House and Senante Reps :?:

 

[Outsider]

I'm confused on the problem. Someone give it to me in a nut shell.

 

[Jeff Johnson]

So did anyone else write their House and Senante Reps :?:

Yes, I've written to mine:

• Senator Lyle W. Hillyard[/*]
• Representative Jack R. Draxler[/*]

To find your own House and Senate reps, go to: Utah State Legislature - Find Your Legislator

 

[Jeff Johnson]

I'm confused on the problem. Someone give it to me in a nut shell.

Utah has one of the best concealed firearm permits around the nation. It is very popular because it is reasonably affordable and has very good coverage in terms of reciprocity and recognition with other states. Utah law makes no distinction between resident and non-resident applicants. A goodly percentage of applications for the Utah CFP comes from non-Utah residents.

Now, Utah Public Safety Commissioner Scott Duncan has asked the Utah Legislature to allow the Utah Department of Public Safety to stop issuing Utah CFPs to people who are not residents of Utah. This, in my opinion, is a huge mistake. Utah has been influential in promoting the right to keep and bear arms, particularly by having such large coverage around the states in recognition of the permit, and in helping law-abiding citizens to be able to carry for self-defense as they travel. This is good for our cause. Yes, I know that the higher workload means that it takes time to process all those applications. The solution, however, should not be to stop issuing permits to non-residents. The solution should be to do something that works without hurting the RKBA cause. If the fees being charged are not covering the cost to issue the permits, then perhaps the fees for non-residents ought to be raised a little bit. It would be short-sighted and selfish for Utahns to want to stop issuing permits to non-residents just so their own applications could get processed faster. This could be a case where this is only the first step, and they'll find another way to try to reduce the number of applications they have to process. We shouldn't allow anything that hurts the RKBA cause.

Frankly, I think that BCI needs to hire more people to keep up with the influx of applications. That's a better solution than to try to suppress the program in any way.

 

[divegeek]

Frankly, I think that BCI needs to hire more people to keep up with the influx of applications. That's a better solution than to try to suppress the program in any way.

Absolutely.

If there are too many applications, hire more people to process them. If there's not enough funding to hire the people, then raise the application fees. If they have to raise the fees, I think they should raise them a bit more than is required, so they can add a position for a full-time reciprocity officer, whose job it is to focus on further increasing the list of states that honor Utah's permits and to address any reciprocity-related issues or misunderstandings that arise.

Go BIGGER, not smaller!

 

[nxiv]

As an out of State UT CFP holder and instructor. Here's my take on it.

I have no issue with non-residents paying higher fees and having a longer issuance window. Fortunately your legislature is very pro-2A. One of the committee members won't let this see the light of day if he has anything to say about it.

I am in favor of the following changes to the UT CFP application process for non-residents.

Double the fees for non-residents; $131.50 for the initial application, $20 for renewals. 90 day issuance period for non-residents. Everything remains the same for Utah residents. The Utah CFP will still be popular for non-residents even at those fees because of the great recognition and reciprocity.

I'm also in favor of double the application and training class fees for non-resident UT CFP instructors and perhaps non-resident instructors having to recertify every two years instead of three.

I have heard UT DPS complain about the in ability to police non-resident instructors. With the additional revenue from the increased non-resident fees, they can afford to have surprise audits done on non-resident instructors at their normal training venue. Also many of the non-resident UT CFP instructors are electing not to recertify and take the mandatory UT BCI class every three years and will just refer their students to get a FL CWFL. You will see fewer non-resident UT CFP instructors because of the change in the instructor certification process.

I do have a work around if UT ceases issuing non-resident CFPs. I can get a Florida and a Washington and that will make up for the lost coverage. It will cost me more and I will have to travel to Seattle every five years to renew a WA CCW as you must apply in person.

Florida has also been issuing non-resident CWFLs longer than UT has been shall issue at $117 for the initial license, $107 for renewals for non-residents. The question becomes do you want the revenue associated with non-resident CFPs and propose something like I have mentioned to make the program better, more efficient or do you want us Out of Staters to give our money to Florida and Washington State?

We have non-resident hunting licenses and tuition in Utah. There is no reason Utah BCI should cease issuing non-resident permits.

I have seen Clark's comments on this, and I believe he also agrees UT DPS should continue to issue non-resident CFPs and have non-resident instructors.

 

[BillK]

Being from Illinois where we do not have any 2nd amendment rights, I hope the great state of Utah continues to allow us outa staters to apply for permits. I also agree that non residents should pay more than residents, especially if you're having to support it with tax dollars. I would gladly pay double what is charged now if that is what is needed to keep issuing to nons.