Utah Guns Forum banner

New Utah Constitutional Carry Bill

14K views 40 replies 17 participants last post by  Sam Fidler 
#1 ·
#2 ·
I've come to loathe the words "common sense". I can only think of Obama and those who want to take my rights away. I'd picked a very different name. I think most people will assume just from the name it's not good for gun owners.
 
#3 ·
Creek said:
I've come to loathe the words "common sense".
I'm offended that they think open carry is offensive. [logical conclusions since they say concealed is more polite]
 
#4 ·
Creek said:
I've come to loathe the words "common sense". I can only think of Obama and those who want to take my rights away. I'd picked a very different name. I think most people will assume just from the name it's not good for gun owners.
If you take the dictionary definition of "common sense" literal we should be offended, and it makes perfectly clear sense why Obama is using it.

This definition is courtesy of dictionary.com.

common sense
noun
1. sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.
 
#5 ·
I think the wording is genius. It takes command of one of the more powerful words/phrases the antis have been using against us.

Nobody (I hope) on this list needs to be persuaded to support Constitutional Carry. The ad isn't aimed at us. It is aimed at the fence sitters. And with a little play, every time the antis invoke "common sense" we will have a built in memory device that causes the fence sitters to consider our point of view.

At this point I don't care if we call it the Flying Spaghetti Monster Carry bill if that will help get it passed.

It is time for Utah to take the nest step in giving these Constitutional Rights their due regard.

Charles
 
#8 ·
I don't understand why it would hurt reciprocity. The Utah permit and process wouldn't have changed, just the requirement that you needed to have one while in the state of Utah. It was already discussed that if you wanted to carry outside Utah, you'd need to follow the laws of the state you were in, to include permits. That was a primary reason not to do away with the Utah permit system altogether.
 
#9 ·
So is this just a lobby to the legislature? Or do we actually have people drafting the bill and a sponsoring representative working on this bill for the 2015 session? It was unfortunate when HB76 was vetoed that it didn't get taken back up in the house being that it passed both with >2/3.
 
#11 ·
I really don't like their video and how they portray open carry and how this would help solve the problem of someone grabbing your gun or someone calling the police because they saw your gun.
 
#12 ·
D-FIN said:
I really don't like their video and how they portray open carry and how this would help solve the problem of someone grabbing your gun or someone calling the police because they saw your gun.
This is not about open carry. This is about getting common sense constitutional carry passed. And again, it is aimed at the fence sitters, some of who don't much like open carry.

The message is simple, "If you don't like open carry, end the legal ban on concealed carry without government permission slips."

I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.

Charles
 
#13 ·
But if you alienate your core constituency you harm your chances of success. We on the pro-side are very hesitant to support anything labeled common sense, we will mistrust anything so labeled as having a hidden trap. Why the mistrust? Because the anti's have grabbed the word and used it with great success. It bit us big time just after Sandy Hook with the infamous "90% of Americans support common sense actions like improved background checks" poll. They got that high level support because it sounded good across the board, then people realized what they meant by "common sense" and "improved background checks," and the numbers quickly plummeted below 50%, but they keep trotting out the 90%, and the much abused "Common Sense" Label.

Alienating your base of support by using terms they greatly miss-trust can backfire leading to another year without Constitutional carry, which does not eliminate the permit requirement to carry into a GFSZ. Yes I know other states have written their laws to state blanket permission for all citizens, but those statements have not been tested in court.

Bad verbiage in my opinion.
 
#14 ·
bagpiper said:
I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.

Charles
Since you've thrown it out twice, I have to assume you're trolling for a discussion. I'll bite.

No, I don't need any persuasion to support permit-free constitutional carry. Publicly I'll support it, and if it came to a referendum I would certainly vote for it.

Privately, and on a discussion board with like minded people, I will say that I do have some reservations. While it's true that anyone can open carry now, without a permit, they do have, and I know you'll hate me using "their word", some commonsense restrictions.

It makes me a little nervous to envision a world where people as clueless as my own family could buy a gun, conceal it, and walk around without restrictions. Not only does it worry me from a standpoint of public safety, but also for their safety as well. Without at least some familiarity with basic safe handling skills, the chances of injuring themselves or others increase exponential in my opinion. In the old west, if you didn't have a clue and you were foolish enough to draw on someone that did, you were rather quickly removed from the gene pool, and chances are at least a few would learn from your mistake. Now days, unless you have a badge, carrying a gun isn't permit free permission to practice Darwinism. Yes, if you're threatened you can defend yourself, but that said, someone I respect recently said "Every bullet that leaves your gun has a lawyer attached to it." I certainly don't want to be a test case for having shot someone that fumbled their gun out of their holster and pointed it at me because they noticed I was carrying a gun, or I looked like the guy that beat up their sister last night, or any of a million other misguided reasons that someone might have for pulling their gun.

So, I agree, it's our constitutional right to carry, and I wouldn't make any of these comments in a public forum. Privately, I think with rights comes responsibility. And I would not be overly offended if choosing to exercise the right to carry came with the condition of demonstrating some safety skills. I understand that the constitution doesn't have a "but" in the wording. I will, however, point out that it was a very different world. To some extent, surviving required having basic gun skills. Particularly if you lived outside the cities. The founding fathers wrote a document based on the world they knew, and I'm not advocating changes, I'm just making the comment that they were human. They may not have thought everything through, particularly with no fore knowledge of the world to come.

Mel
 
#16 ·
quychang said:
bagpiper said:
I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.

Charles
Since you've thrown it out twice, I have to assume you're trolling for a discussion. I'll bite.

No, I don't need any persuasion to support permit-free constitutional carry. Publicly I'll support it, and if it came to a referendum I would certainly vote for it.

Privately, and on a discussion board with like minded people, I will say that I do have some reservations. While it's true that anyone can open carry now, without a permit, they do have, and I know you'll hate me using "their word", some commonsense restrictions.

It makes me a little nervous to envision a world where people as clueless as my own family could buy a gun, conceal it, and walk around without restrictions. Not only does it worry me from a standpoint of public safety, but also for their safety as well. Without at least some familiarity with basic safe handling skills, the chances of injuring themselves or others increase exponential in my opinion. In the old west, if you didn't have a clue and you were foolish enough to draw on someone that did, you were rather quickly removed from the gene pool, and chances are at least a few would learn from your mistake. Now days, unless you have a badge, carrying a gun isn't permit free permission to practice Darwinism. Yes, if you're threatened you can defend yourself, but that said, someone I respect recently said "Every bullet that leaves your gun has a lawyer attached to it." I certainly don't want to be a test case for having shot someone that fumbled their gun out of their holster and pointed it at me because they noticed I was carrying a gun, or I looked like the guy that beat up their sister last night, or any of a million other misguided reasons that someone might have for pulling their gun.

So, I agree, it's our constitutional right to carry, and I wouldn't make any of these comments in a public forum. Privately, I think with rights comes responsibility. And I would not be overly offended if choosing to exercise the right to carry came with the condition of demonstrating some safety skills. I understand that the constitution doesn't have a "but" in the wording. I will, however, point out that it was a very different world. To some extent, surviving required having basic gun skills. Particularly if you lived outside the cities. The founding fathers wrote a document based on the world they knew, and I'm not advocating changes, I'm just making the comment that they were human. They may not have thought everything through, particularly with no fore knowledge of the world to come.

Mel
While I agree that you should take upon yourself the responsibility of being proficient with the battery of arms you choose to carry, I simply do not believe you can legislate personal responsibility. Every single accident that could be had with a firearm(that I can think of) already is illegal. For example the lady that killed a toilet in a school (LOL).

I get what you are saying, and in theory I agree with everyone being proficient with their firearm, but I know that there is no way to enforce this without infringing on personal rights. (That I can think of, anyway)

I guess what I am getting likely puts us in the same boat. In theory, it would be nice, but i don't trust anyone, especially not the government to regulate this.

Right now, there are people who teach that western medicine is completely bunk, and have HUGE followings. This results in people dying from diseases by the thousands that they wouldn't have died from. This has a huge impact on our society. For the greater good, we could make them take some immunology and physiology classes before they get to spout their nonsense, but that would a violation of rights. I view this no differently, honestly.

Great in theory, but I just don't think you can legislate common sense.
 
#17 ·
J_dazzle23 said:
Great in theory, but I just don't think you can legislate common sense.
No argument there, but I don't think showing someone the basic mechanics of safety is out of line. There's a world of difference between the lack of commonsense and the lack of a clue. You definitely can't legislate commonsense, and you most likely can't teach it. However, if a person has any commonsense at all, you can give them a clue.

Mel
 
#18 ·
quychang said:
bagpiper said:
I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.
Since you've thrown it out twice, I have to assume you're trolling for a discussion. I'll bite.

No, I don't need any persuasion to support permit-free constitutional carry. Publicly I'll support it, and if it came to a referendum I would certainly vote for it.

Privately, and on a discussion board with like minded people, I will say that I do have some reservations. While it's true that anyone can open carry now, without a permit, they do have, and I know you'll hate me using "their word", some commonsense restrictions.
I was actually using it more of a debating/rhetorical device than trolling for a response. But I do greatly appreciate your heartfelt explanation.

To be honest, I think a lot of us share those feelings in various areas including permit free carry, OC of long guns, OCing into businesses to make a point, and so on. And I think a board like this is the proper place to discuss them rather than in the all too common, "I'm a gun owner, but..." kind of letters to the editor. There are a lot of cases where I realize that we can get ourselves enough rope that in only takes a couple of fools among us to hang us all. The teacher killing the toilet in the school, teachers' restroom this year was a milestone we could have happily lived without ever having.

Our opponents made great progress for many years by dividing gun owners. Duck and dear hunters vs self defense vs long range shooters vs collectors. To the extent we can stick together, we much better protect our rights.

I guess for me, the bottom line is that I'm less uncomfortable respecting the rights of others than I am with conceding government has just power to regulate or infringe those rights just so I am not uncomfortable. :nilly: :nilly:

And good luck properly parsing that sentence. :D

Charles
 
#19 ·
DaKnife said:
But if you alienate your core constituency you harm your chances of success. We on the pro-side are very hesitant to support anything labeled common sense, we will mistrust anything so labeled as having a hidden trap.
But our core responds well to rational arguments. We need the emotional language to get the fence sitters. We need to deny the use of that language to our opponents.

Or, hate the rhetoric and messaging, but do your best to support the bill (so long as it doesn't have fatal flaws).

Charles
 
#20 ·
bagpiper said:
I guess for me, the bottom line is that I'm less uncomfortable respecting the rights of others than I am with conceding government has just power to regulate or infringe those rights just so I am not uncomfortable. :nilly: :nilly:

And good luck properly parsing that sentence. :D

Charles
I guess there's something wrong in my head, because at first reading it made perfect sense. Going back and re reading it gives me a headache. :lol3:

But, I don't disagree with what I read the first time. I truly do feel that if constitutional carry was enacted, and then non mandatory, completely voluntary training was offered, with possible incentives to urge people to take advantage of it, we could have the best of both worlds. I've pretty much said my piece on the subject, but did want to jump in and acknowledge your contribution. Our thinking really isn't that far apart, truth be told. I just waffle more on my convictions.

Mel
 
#21 ·
bagpiper said:
I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.

Charles
Actually, I dont have a big problem with states requiring a permit to conceal, or even to carry openly for that matter. I think that just as one needs to demonstrate an aptitude before being able to drive a car, fly a plane, operate a crane in the middle of the city, etc, it is not unreasonable to expect someone to go through some rudimentary training or at least demonstrate that you already have sufficient aptitude with a firearm before carrying one around. Both before and during my time as an RSO, ive seen people do too much stupid crap too many times with guns in their hands to be gullible enough to believe that left to their own devices, people will do the right thing and get training if they need it, and id rather not be the unfortunate statistic who ends up being "down range" when one of these idiots who doesnt even know how to hold a gun properly decides they need to fire it and misses their target.

I think that all states should be "shall issue" and not "may issue", but I dont have a problem with the need to have a state issue a permit. I dont have enough faith in most of humanity to think that the permits (or more correctly the training/education that they typically require) arent needed.
 
#22 ·
gravedancer said:
bagpiper said:
I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.

Charles
Actually, I dont have a big problem with states requiring a permit to conceal, or even to carry openly for that matter. I think that just as one needs to demonstrate an aptitude before being able to drive a car, fly a plane, operate a crane in the middle of the city, etc, it is not unreasonable to expect someone to go through some rudimentary training or at least demonstrate that you already have sufficient aptitude with a firearm before carrying one around. Both before and during my time as an RSO, ive seen people do too much stupid crap too many times with guns in their hands to be gullible enough to believe that left to their own devices, people will do the right thing and get training if they need it, and id rather not be the unfortunate statistic who ends up being "down range" when one of these idiots who doesnt even know how to hold a gun properly decides they need to fire it and misses their target.

I think that all states should be "shall issue" and not "may issue", but I dont have a problem with the need to have a state issue a permit. I dont have enough faith in most of humanity to think that the permits (or more correctly the training/education that they typically require) arent needed.
Well, sadly, I stand corrected.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your low opinion of humanity's intelligence and ability, I have to stand firmly on the side of constitutional rights.

I cannot support any more prior-restraint on the 2nd amendment that I would accept on the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. I've read some really stupid things in newspapers, blocks, and tweats. But I can't support mandatory training before respecting freedom of speech.

I heard some downright offensive, ugly and dangerous things in sermons. But I can't countenance government presuming to require preachers to obtain a government license prior to embarking on their ministry, even if the license is "shall issue." I simply have too much respect for freedom of religion.

I know. It is easy to say that words and sermons don't kill anyone. But they foment riots. They persuade people to vote away their birthrights.

And at the end of the day, I don't think the responsible, intelligent, careful, or prudent among us (however slim a minority that might be) should have our rights infringed because of the stupidity of others. Plus, unlike driving, RsKBA is a constitutionally enumerated right.

I'm all for appropriate, harsh punishment if someone abuses his right and infringes on the rights of others. Such punishment might well be one component of encouraging folks to get and act upon proper training before acquiring, carrying, or using a gun.

Finally, I don't notice that the 6 States with permit-free Constitutional carry (Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, Wyoming, etc) nor roughly 16 additional States that allow permit-free open carry are experiencing any higher problem with firearms than either States with shall issue, nor fairly restrictive may issue permit systems.

In brief, the right demands that we not require a permit; and we have tons of objective evidence that not requiring a permit does not lead to the problems that concern you.

Charles
 
#23 ·
The same way that doctors dont give certificates in basic hand washing in order to prevent the common cold and other illness, the only way for people to truly learn not to be dumb with gun safety without infringing on their life/privacy etc. is to understand that humans will always make mistakes. There will never be any perfect safeguard against accidents or stupidity and I think its not the governments job to try to prevent problems. I hope to one day live in a world where family teaching gun safety was as common as potty training kids.
 
#24 ·
I agree that getting Training prior to carrying concealed or open carrying is a great idea, and there really is no arguing that the only way to ensure this happens is to make it a legal requirement before getting a permit. My problem with requiring training for concealed carry stems from the fact that it's also a great idea for anybody who buys or otherwise owns a gun to get Training. Once again, the only way we could ensure this actually happens would be to make it a requirement.

If we are going to require training for somebody to carry a firearm, which is basically just allowing them to have a firearm available to them outside their home, then wouldn't it also make sense to require training before owning a firearm in the first place? Slippery slope.

Edit: although to be honest, I also have the feeling of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" in this particular case. Utah's permit system works really well, and I'm not sure I feel any great urgency to change things at this time. However, this feeling isn't strong enough that I would vote against a Constitutional Carry bill if one were to come up.
 
#25 ·
Doctor Jenks said:
I agree that getting Training prior to carrying concealed or open carrying is a great idea, and there really is no arguing that the only way to ensure this happens is to make it a legal requirement before getting a permit. My problem with requiring training for concealed carry stems from the fact that it's also a great idea for anybody who buys or otherwise owns a gun to get Training. Once again, the only way we could ensure this actually happens would be to make it a requirement.

If we are going to require training for somebody to carry a firearm, which is basically just allowing them to have a firearm available to them outside their home, then wouldn't it also make sense to require training before owning a firearm in the first place? Slippery slope.

Edit: although to be honest, I also have the feeling of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" in this particular case. Utah's permit system works really well, and I'm not sure I feel any great urgency to change things at this time. However, this feeling isn't strong enough that I would vote against a Constitutional Carry bill if one were to come up.
I wouldnt actually throw a fit at a requirement to demonstrate basic firearm competency as a prerequisite for owning a firearm either, though I admit that that might be due to my being taught such skills before I learned to drive.

And I most certainly would vote in favor of a constitutional carry bill were one to come up on a ballot, because while i might express doubts and misgivings here among my peers as it were, I do believe in the need to maintain as much of a unified front as possible in front of the antis.
 
#26 ·
Doctor Jenks said:
I agree that getting Training prior to carrying concealed or open carrying is a great idea, and there really is no arguing that the only way to ensure this happens is to make it a legal requirement before getting a permit. My problem with requiring training for concealed carry stems from the fact that it's also a great idea for anybody who buys or otherwise owns a gun to get Training. Once again, the only way we could ensure this actually happens would be to make it a requirement.

If we are going to require training for somebody to carry a firearm, which is basically just allowing them to have a firearm available to them outside their home, then wouldn't it also make sense to require training before owning a firearm in the first place? Slippery slope.

Edit: although to be honest, I also have the feeling of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" in this particular case. Utah's permit system works really well, and I'm not sure I feel any great urgency to change things at this time. However, this feeling isn't strong enough that I would vote against a Constitutional Carry bill if one were to come up.
I don't know if it's still the case, but back when Dodge Vipers were relatively new, if you purchased one, you were required to take a drivers training course. Yes, they would still sell it to you if you had the money, but if you wanted a warranty you took the class. I guess Dodge got tired of replacing racing clutches for clueless drivers.

Perhaps something along that line would work with guns. Walk out of the shop without appropriate basic safety training, no warranty or even no concealed carry. Sure I'll sell you a gun. If you screw it up, or hurt someone, you're on your own. Just throwing out an idea that's been knocking around in my head I'm sure there arguments for and against, and details I've overlooked. Someone in a shop, assuming a range, could give you basic instruction in 30-60 minutes. If that's too long for you, fine. Walk out, take your chances That would spread out the range time issue, avoid the mandatory issue, and give everyone at least a chance at getting a clue.

I don't think there is one perfect answer. But I do think there are ways to get people involved in at least the basics, relatively painlessly. I mean, honestly, how many people would pass up a chance at free range time to try out their new purchase? You could easily exempt permit holders from the requirement. Again, I'm sure there are flaws, but training of any kind is always a good thing

Mel
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top