Tribune Article Impunes Concealed Carriers

Here's a link to that editorial: Taking aim: Legislature should amend gun-permit law

What a load of tripe. The only trouble with Utah permits, really, is that they're required at all. We should go to Alaska-style carry.

The writer of this editorial is of the type that quakes at the idea that people could be allowed to exercise the right of self-defense. The writer wants the nanny state to protect all citizens, ignoring the fact that the police do not have a duty to protect you or me, as has been affirmed and reaffirmed in many court cases, including at the U.S. Supreme Court.

And this one was rich:

...
By putting concealed-carry permits in the hands of residents of states with more restrictive gun laws, our lawmakers are usurping the rights of other states.
...

Click to expand...

The writer ignores the fact that the states that choose to recognize Utah permits are very much exercising their states' rights to do so. So are the states that choose not to recognize Utah concealed firearm permits.

I do not, nor will I ever subscribe to the Salt Lake Tribune with this kind of trash on the editorial page.

Jeff Johnson said:

The writer wants the nanny state to protect all citizens, ignoring the fact that the police do not have a duty to protect you or me, as has been affirmed and reaffirmed in many court cases, including at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that hardly a day ever passes, it seems, where right here locally we have a new story demonstrating that the police simply CANNOT be responsible for always defending us... they simply can never be large enough, powerful enough, or all knowing enough to live up to that "hope" that many hold.

... By putting concealed-carry permits in the hands of residents of states with more restrictive gun laws, our lawmakers are usurping the rights of other states...

Click to expand...

This was one of the points that I found incredibly dishonest... you don't have to understand the gun laws very well to understand that other states would not be forced into accepting Utah's permits unless the forcing was done at the Federal level... for the Editor to be promulgating something so obviously false is what I found so amazing. I don't understand how a newspaper cannot be held liable in some way for making such an obviously false statement.

I, for one, don't and haven't subscribed to a newspaper in YEARS; largely b/c I'm tired of all of the large corporate money that backs them all and then persuades them to print the material they choose. While we still have a 1st Amendment in this country, I don't think there's much truth to the "free press" claim we are so proud of. There's not much "free" about it when the owners of the press dictate the content and censor the counter-positions.

The following is a comment made on SLCTRIPE.COM that I thought was well thought out. It's by a user named David Nelson.

TRIBUNE: “Utah's concealed-weapon permits are … inexpensive.” FACT: Utah Concealed Firearm Permits require the payment of $65.25 for fees and are the second most expensive permit among the seven contiguous states (Arizona permits cost $60.00, Colorado permits cost $52.50, Idaho permits cost $20.00, Nevada permits cost $60.00, New Mexico permits cost $100.00 and Wyoming permits cost $50.00).

TRIBUNE: “Utah's concealed-weapon permits are … easy to obtain.” FACT: Utah Concealed Firearm Permits require the completion of “in-person training consisting of a minimum of 4 hours … to learn safe-handgun practices and have a practical knowledge of the laws that govern firearms and the use of force.” The minimum requirements for a permit applicant include also: 1) a criminal-history review (“background check”), 2) age of 21 years or older, 3) never convicted of committing a felony crime, 4) never convicted of committing a violent crime, 5) never convicted of committing a crime involving the use of alcohol, 6) never convicted of committing a crime involving the unlawful use of narcotics or other controlled substances, 7) never convicted of committing a crime involving moral turpitude, 8) never convicted of committing a crime involving domestic violence, and 9) never adjudicated by a court of a state or of the United States as mentally incompetent, unless the adjudication has been withdrawn or reversed.

TRIBUNE: Some Utah Concealed Firearm Permit instructors “will let you watch a videotape in lieu of the mandated training course.” FACT: And, they’d be in violation of state laws. It’s hardly the fault of the permit program for the criminal behavior of “some” nameless instructors.

TRIBUNE: Utah “legislators … allowed Utah taxpayers to underwrite the cost” of Utah Concealed Firearm Permits. FACT: As evidenced by the permit fees that are charged by neighboring states, Utah fees are moderate and designed to pay for the cost of the permits administration. If any constituency of Utahns enjoys its constitutional rights while tax dollars subsidize its private, for-profit businesses, it’s newspaper publishers like the Tribune which have benefited from a specific tax exemption on their graphic, typographic and printing investments.

TRIBUNE: “30 states … accept Utah permits.” FACT: Utah Concealed Firearm Permits are recognized by 33 states including itself, not “30.”

TRIBUNE: Thirty-three states including itself “foolishly accept Utah permits as valid under reciprocity agreements. By putting concealed-carry permits in the hands of residents of states with more restrictive gun laws, our lawmakers are usurping the rights of other states.” FACT: The elected and appointed government officials of 33 states as diverse as Alaska and Florida have reviewed Utah Concealed Firearm Permit laws and found them meeting or exceeding the requirements of their own state-permit laws. They chose to recognize them as valid in their own states; that’s not foolish, that’s Democracy and the right of every state.

TRIBUNE: Utah Concealed Firearm Permits “are rarely revoked in the interim” between initial and renewal applications. FACT: As evidenced by its own quarterly statistical reports, Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification staffers revoke permits routinely when cause of revocation is determined by a variety of ways including ongoing criminal-history reviews of Utahns and other U.S. residents with permits. Other nations don’t recognize the permits, so anyone including non-U.S. residents who have permits can do little with them except in the 33 states that recognize them. The recently discovered mistake of NICS National Instant Check System criminal-history reviews of non-U.S. residents showing “no record found” (the same response provided for U.S. residents with no criminal histories) needs to be corrected, no doubt. But, it’s a mistake that affected most other states, too.

TRIBUNE: “Forbidding the issuance of Utah permits to out-of-state residents would be a wise move.” FACT: There’s no proof that such action is needed. The permit cost is moderate and among the most expensive. The permit training is substantial, defined and required. Any tax-dollar subsidy enjoyed by the permit program is dwarfed by similar subsidies to other state licenses, permits, certificates and even private businesses. The leaders of 33 states believe that the permit is at least as valid as their own. The permits are reviewed and revoked routinely as needed.

I believe that all other Salt Lake Tribune editorial arguments are ad hominem, non sequitur and generally fallacious. Sadly, on this matter at least, it’s not the first time the editors have convinced me of such.

I am glad to see the responses members of our forum posted on the SLTrib site, thanks for providing the link, Jeff.
The comments by Mr. Nelson were excellent, the unfortunate thing is that very few will probably ever get to see those comments, as compared to the whole of the populace in Utah.
I have written many times over the years to the Tribune in order to dispel falacious statements I have seen on guns and the Second Amendment, not to say other subjects as well, unfortunately in all my years of writing I have not been printed yet. It is easier to be printed in papers like the City Weekly, which has printed a rebuttal of mine several months ago.
What I would really like to see is not just honorable reporting which is based on facts, but honorable opinion pieces that use legitimate arguments based upon truth & knowledge--even if I disagree with the piece, at least it would be better than the tripe we regularly are served by our local papers and the editors thereof.