seems important!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: seems important!

  1. #1

    seems important!

    Utah Senate gives preliminary nod to gun permit bill | Deseret News

    This would be a real problem for all UT non res permit holders, I can only hope this will not pass or at least not be applied to current permits!

  2.   
  3. #2
    I am not sure that I am totally against this bill but I think they do need to make some allowance for states that do not issue pemits. Again I am not going to get into the discussion about whether a permit should be required at all but I do think one should get a permit from their home state before getting non-resident permits. I also think that universal reciprocation would solve that problem it isn't going to happen until there is some agreement on permit requirements.

    There was a recent post somewhere about someone who lived in TX but had only a UT permit and was stopped for a traffic violation. Before it was over there was quite a show about whether or not his UT permit was good in TX. There is also the "loophole" that by obtaining certain state permits a NC resident can get around the requirement that you have to be 21 to carry concealed. There are too many screwed up laws and too many people ready to take advantage of them. It has nothing to do with gun shows but under the private sales laws it is easy for a convicted felon to purchase a gun from an unsuspecting seller. I believe that the law only requires you to have no reason to suspect that someone is a convicted felon to sell to them so that puts all the burden on the buyer to tell the seller that he is prohibited. We know how well that works.

  4. #3
    I can see that UT is looking into doing this in order to make sure their permits remain valid as much as possible. But many states make you jump thru all sorts of hoops in order to get a permit, mine does not grant permits to non citizens at all. So I could not get my local permit as much as I would have liked to.

  5. UT ccw

    The unfortunate thing that Utah has not considered or at least I haven't read it, is going to be the lost revenue from all the non-residents who obtain permits from this state. In addition what about the residents of other states that don't allow permits? (California=impossible/Illinois/Wisconsin=right denied)Then you would be preventing them from obtaining any permit for when they travel.

    It would seem every time any legislature goes down this road, all they are trying to do is open the door to be more restrictive in our right to carry, under the guise of trying to make something better that wasn't even broken. All they want to do is take one piece of the pie at time, so that some of us say "well that's not that bad!"

    One of the reasons this senator wants the law changed is because Nevada, New Mexico and other states don't recognize their permit any longer. Well, the main reason for that is because they do not require any time on the range as in those states. Then maybe Utah should go back to a simple qualification as other states or ? I know that is why Nevada doesn't recognize Utah any longer, among other reasons. When Utah shortened there class time and eliminated the range requirement, Nevada said NO. To start with Nevada is a difficult state to obtain a permit, they require you to list all your carry guns on your card and you cannot carry anything different from that, among other things. If the senator wants to do something about CCW's in Utah, eliminate the requirement all together and if people want to get one for the other states they visit then that would be better.

    Furthermore, other states with Utah CCW instructors will teach this class because it is not required to be taught inside that state and the permit is valid in about 30+ states, well that's a pretty good bang for your buck. Since other states don't have this recognition available, their permit may not be valid in a state they frequently travel/vacation too.

    It is so arbitrary on why some states accept others and some don't. We can all agree every state is different, but I know one thing I don't want is the federal government taking control over the permits as some have even mentioned before, because we see how they handle things. The second admendment doesn't require any permit, the second admendment is my permit. A CCW is your appeasement to distract you and get information and fingerprints.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Greater Houston Area, TX
    Posts
    66
    I am one of the Utah non resident license holders and hope non of these pass. The only reason I have one and not a Texas one is cost. I don't have a problem with the classes being longer or doing and passing range time. I am the sole provider for my family (my husband is disabled) and the added expensive is why I didn't have one for so long, I simply couldn't afford it. The Utah license allows me to protect my family.

  7. #6
    Some states consider the permits a license to print money, they charge lots more than UT. And of course every state wants to keep control over their subjects, how dare they go and get somebody elses permit!

  8. #7
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by LPFT View Post
    To start with Nevada is a difficult state to obtain a permit, they require you to list all your carry guns on your card and you cannot carry anything different from that, among other things.
    Just a minor correction...

    Nevada only requires that pistols be listed on the permit. Regarding revolvers, my resident permit simply states, "Revolvers Allowed" without listing each.

    (I have a Nevada (resident), Utah and NH (non-resident) permits.)

    The scuttle-butt around the local gun stores is that Nevada may be changing the requirement to list pistols in the near future. (I hope)

  9. #8
    Doesn't Utah bring in some pretty significant revenue from the 44,043 non resident permits they apply? I'm sure that $65.25 x 44,043 = lots of $$$$.

    I understand the concern from people living in no (or restricted) carry states but what about those who live in states with no reciprocity? Like my state was under the old law; required you get a permit from this state & another state for reciprocity.
    An armed society is a polite society.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    817
    i am thinking of getting a utah permit. while i already have a resident washinton permit(and realizing that boith states recognize each others permits), i would like to expand my range so to speak. my wife of 37 years and myself plan on traveling soon. i hope that utah continues its current policy. i do have a question for anybody who has a non-residend utah permit. while i realize the class must be utah approved does it require live fire? i just want to be ready with earplugs and my own gun if need be. thanks

  11. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by santa View Post
    i am thinking of getting a utah permit. while i already have a resident washinton permit(and realizing that boith states recognize each others permits), i would like to expand my range so to speak. my wife of 37 years and myself plan on traveling soon. i hope that utah continues its current policy. i do have a question for anybody who has a non-residend utah permit. while i realize the class must be utah approved does it require live fire? i just want to be ready with earplugs and my own gun if need be. thanks
    As it is right now the Utah class does not require range time so no ear plugs needed ;-)] In fact, that is part of what some other states don't like about UT permits in general.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast