The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 26, 2011, 11:14 AM   #1
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho, near WY
Posts: 507
Possible Change to Utah's Non-Resident Permits...

SB36 » A bill that would require nonstate residents to obtain concealed weapons permits from their home states before obtaining one in Utah passed through committee unanimously Tuesday.

For the full story....

SB36 » A bill that would require nonstate residents to obtain concealed weapons permits from their
RETG is offline  
Old January 26, 2011, 11:22 AM   #2
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
That's going to hurt people from states that don't issue permits, such as Vermont and Wisconsin. Seems unfair to me, unless the law includes an exception.

But how do you write an exception that covers states like NY, MD, and CA, where they nominally issue permits, but in practice it's impossible for most people to get one?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 26, 2011, 11:32 AM   #3
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
Quote:
But how do you write an exception that covers states like NY, MD, and CA, where they nominally issue permits, but in practice it's impossible for most people to get one?

I need to start a thread about permits in NY....


It's not impossible to get a permit in NY. Geographically, it's a virtual guarantee for probably 90% of the state.

The only problems are in NY CITY which is not the same as NY STATE... a fact that seems lost on 99% of the rest of the country.... and a few other cities, like Buffalo.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives...
...they just don't plan not to.
-Andy Stanley
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 26, 2011, 11:57 AM   #4
airfoil
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2011
Posts: 5
Not to be loathing or anything, but I personally never really saw the appeal of a Utah license over say, a Florida license.

I looked into a Utah license a few years ago before I applied for a Florida license. You had to find a Utah instructor (which can be really easy or really hard to do depending on your location outside of Utah), the cost is about the same, reciprocity is roughly the same, and the requirements for a Utah license are a little more restrictive.

Regardless, it's a bad bill. Self-defense has nothing to do with one's "home state."

Quote:
The only problems are in NY CITY which is not the same as NY STATE... a fact that seems lost on 99% of the rest of the country.... and a few other cities, like Buffalo.
Actually I know that NY state is actually more like Texas than a lot of people realize... you're right, too many people think of NY as in NYC.
airfoil is offline  
Old January 26, 2011, 03:19 PM   #5
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
I need to start a thread about permits in NY....


It's not impossible to get a permit in NY. Geographically, it's a virtual guarantee for probably 90% of the state.
It depends on the county, doesn't it? Certainly, NYC is virtually impossible unless you're connected. Other parts of the state, aren't the permits issued by or signed off on by a county judge, and doesn't he/she have complete discretion as to whether or not you get your permit?

There are probably some counties in up-state NY that are maybe 90 percent, but I doubt it's anywhere near 90 percent around White Plains (Westchester County?) or on Long Island (Hampden County?).

But the crux of my previous point remains valid regardless of the percentage of probability that a NY (state) resident can get a home state permit. New York City alone has a population of about 8,400,000 people. The entire state of NY has a population of about 18,500,000. So NYC has 45 percent of the population of the entire state. Even if the rest of the state has a 100 percent issue rate, that's still 45 percent of the state ... 8-1/2 MILLION people ... who can't get a permit in their home state.

And who would therefore also be precluded from getting a non-resident permit in Utah if this new law passes.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 26, 2011, 08:26 PM   #6
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho, near WY
Posts: 507
Sorry guys, I appears the link does not work. However, this afternoon I actually spent some time reading the proposed law and it appears, if passed as written, that if your state issues a permit, but does not recognize Utah, you cannot obtain a non-res Utah permit.

(A) hold a current concealed firearm or concealed weapon permit issued by the appropriate permitting authority of the nonresident applicant's state of residency that recognizes the validity of the Utah permit in that state or has reciprocity with Utah's concealed firearm permit law; and

Will not affect current permits until they are renewed after Jan 2012.
Beginning January 1, 2012, Subsection (1)(a)(ii) also applies to an application for renewal of a concealed firearm permit by a nonresident.
RETG is offline  
Old January 26, 2011, 11:09 PM   #7
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
(A) hold a current concealed firearm or concealed weapon permit issued by the appropriate permitting authority of the nonresident applicant's state of residency that recognizes the validity of the Utah permit in that state or has reciprocity with Utah's concealed firearm permit law; and
That's just plain retarded.

If they want to play tit-for-tat, they should be refusing to issue a non-resident permit to those from states that won't issue a non-resident permit to people from Utah. The reciprocity provision is especially idiotic, since if the two states have reciprocity there's no need for a Utah non-resident permit. (Yes, I am aware that many people like it for the other states it brings into the mix, but that's not really the purview of the Utah state legislature.)

I hope this piece of foolishness dies quickly and dies hard.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 27, 2011, 09:44 AM   #8
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho, near WY
Posts: 507
I can see what they are trying to do. They are trying to get the UT permit recognized by other states; especially the two that have dropped UT permits in the past two years.

I honestly could care less about this, but my neighbor who has a UT permit believes it is a great idea, and should go one step further. He believes that UT should stop recognizing all state permits, unless the a state recognizes UT permits. In other words, get the residents of those states up in arms to write their legislators to change their laws.

I agree, it is not the purview of the UT legislature to change laws in other states, but they have the authority to change their own laws. I believe there are quite a few states that have written into their concealed handgun permit laws that they will recognize only state permits from states that recognized their permits.

I would bet if it passes the house, the gov will sign it.
RETG is offline  
Old January 27, 2011, 10:29 AM   #9
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
...my neighbor... believes that UT should stop recognizing all state permits, unless the a state recognizes UT permits. In other words, get the residents of those states up in arms to write their legislators to change their laws.
IMHO your neighbor's reasoning is flawed. Several states with may-issue systems are unlikely to ever recognize out-of-state permits until they're forced by the courts, and trust me, RKBA advocates in these states are already screaming at the top of their lungs to get the laws changed. Distant may-issue states such as MA and NY probably have few visitors from UT and therefore have little incentive to recognize UT permits. IMHO these states are highly unlikely to see UT's refusal to recognize their permits as a convincing reason to change anything about their own CHL systems.

IMHO the state that stands to lose the most from this idea is UT because of the potential loss of tourism dollars from other states. UT's economy is more dependent on tourism than the economies of most may-issue states.
Quote:
I believe there are quite a few states that have written into their concealed handgun permit laws that they will recognize only state permits from states that recognized their permits.
I don't know about other states, but TX laws are not written this way. We honor CHLs from pretty much every state that issues them.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old January 27, 2011, 11:24 AM   #10
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho, near WY
Posts: 507
Not sure where you are picking up MAY-issue states. I never stated that in my reply. One that comes to mind is TN and they are a SHALL-issue state. The original TN law did not recognize all permits. When they revised their law, their permit was immediately recognized by many more states.

UT still allows open carry for non-permit holders (two actions away from firing...dumb in my opinion, but that is the way the law is basically interpreted), and UT allows any adult to carry a loaded handgun in the vehicle.

In addition, the theory there are thousands of people who will not travel to another state due to their handgun recognition is, in my opinion, over exaggerated. I know many people with permits who still visit CA, NY and even Hawaii and they sure can't carry concealed in those states. Heck, just look at the tourist industry in those states it is the only thing booming.

And, I don't believe my neighbor is referring to shall-issue states. NM and NV dropped UT and I believe he is more or less thinking of those two, since I know he goes to NV to off-road quite a bit, and he has relatives in NM. I'll have to ask him. And I will mention, he still goes to both states (NV and NM) to either off-road or visit, so the idea he can't carry concealed in either state has not stopped him for spending his tourist dollars in those two states.

But I agree in the fact that UT residents complaining to NM or NV falls on deaf ears. However, the voters of those two states complaining do not necessarily fall on deaf ears since they elect those people.

I also believe, that the main reason NV and NM dropped UT was due to the fact UT does not have a range firing exercise. Which I will add it ludicrous for someone to think firing 50 +/- rounds at a stationary target makes that person anymore competent that a person who does not go through a firing exercise.

Time will tell....
RETG is offline  
Old January 27, 2011, 11:47 AM   #11
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by RETG
I agree, it is not the purview of the UT legislature to change laws in other states, but they have the authority to change their own laws. I believe there are quite a few states that have written into their concealed handgun permit laws that they will recognize only state permits from states that recognized their permits.
But this isn't about reciprocal recognition. This is saying "If you don't recognize our permit, we won't issue a non-resident permit to people from your state." IMHO that's going to hurt only Utah. People who hold non-resident permits won't be able to renew ==> loss of revenue. People who would have taken out a Utah permit because of the number of other states who recognize it won't be able to do so ==> loss of revenue. People from other states who would have vacationed in Utah because they could get a non-resident permit ... won't ==> loss of more revenue.

Dumb.

If Utah wants to say, "If you don't recognize our permit, we won't recognize yours," that's fine. I live in a state that doesn't recognize any other state's permits -- but we DO issue non-resident permits.

I think this Utah proposal is several steps backward, and may even be unconstitutional. Now that the SCOTUS has affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual right, Utah is now planning to make it impossible for residents of many states to exercise that right within Utah.

Dumb.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 27, 2011, 02:32 PM   #12
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Not sure where you are picking up MAY-issue states. I never stated that in my reply. One that comes to mind is TN and they are a SHALL-issue state...
AFAIK the states that don't honor UT permits are, by and large, may-issue states. Furthermore, many people who have non-resident UT permits have one because they live in a may-issue state or city and can't get one at home. For instance, NYC residents who want to carry while traveling often have no other option.

I meant to explain this in my previous post, but it was written in haste and I realize that I didn't adequately explain myself.
Quote:
...and UT allows any adult to carry a loaded handgun in the vehicle.
Not all states have the same regulations as UT regarding carry in a vehicle, which can result in some confusing situations while traveling. For instance, in TX, non-CHL vehicular handgun carry is only legal if the firearm is totally concealed, but in OK, it must be plainly visible. While crossing the Red River, remember to pull out the handgun and put it in the passenger seat...? Furthermore, IMHO the TX statute is ambiguous re: non-CHL vehicular carry while motorcycling or bicycling.

CHL reciprocity is a much cleaner option.
Quote:
But this isn't about reciprocal recognition. This is saying "If you don't recognize our permit, we won't issue a non-resident permit to people from your state." IMHO that's going to hurt only Utah... Dumb... I think this Utah proposal is several steps backward, and may even be unconstitutional.
+1, Aguila said it better than I did, and I agree that this regulation may have the ironic consequence of snagging UT in the same legal net that may snare states such as MA and IL.
Quote:
People from other states who would have vacationed in Utah because they could get a non-resident permit ... won't ==> loss of more revenue.
+1, and to clarify, this isn't so much about "I can't carry in UT" than "Those jerks in UT took my CHL away and now I can't carry AT ALL, I'll visit the mountains in CO instead, that'll show 'em!"
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old January 31, 2011, 11:21 PM   #13
fawcettlee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 11, 2005
Posts: 114
grandfathered in?

The link didn't work...
Does this apply to future ccw applicants or everybody who holds a Utah ccw period?
fawcettlee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08647 seconds with 8 queries