# Concealed carry news



## guner (Sep 25, 2007)

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=243784 ... featured-1


----------



## izzydog (Jan 18, 2008)

Hopefully Herbert doesn't veto it!


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Im not sure I support the bill honestly. More so due to the same reason the governor has stated he is unsure of the bill's benefit. He stated that the current CC permit is beneficial as far as reciprocity is concerned and that this could potentially jeopardize the mutual reciprocity that we share with other states. 

Although I like the idea, I wonder if this could throw a wrench in the works in situations such as this?


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

I don't like the idea simply because most people don't understand the conduct change you must adopt while carrying a gun. When you are armed with a lethal weapon you carry a "higher standard of care". 
Or the four things you can't do while packing. The "stand your ground" law in our's and every other state. When it is legal to pull a gun and shoot someone. Drinking and carrying. Where you can and can't carry. Theses are things that most people won't or don't know to look up. These are things you HAVE to know in order to carry responsibly. Responsibily carrying comes with education.
I also like the idea that CCW permit holders are proven law abiding citizens.
This is coming from someone who has religiously carried whenever possible for over 25 years.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Great insight Longbow!


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

> Drinking and carrying.


Drinking and packing are not illegal. However, it is illegal to be pack'in and under of influence of ........


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

.45 said:


> > Drinking and carrying.
> 
> 
> Drinking and packing are not illegal. However, it is illegal to be pack'in and under of influence of ........


True and different states have different laws. Some, like Utah, are .08. Some are .04 and some are .00 percent. This is something I wouldn't have thought of looking at had I not taken the classes.
One thing a lawer will bring up if you are unfortunate enough to have to defend yourself in court is "did you put yourself into a situation where you needed to use your gun"? Did you bring it on yourself? Alcohol changes people. Some get happier. Some have shorter fuses. Some go looking for a fight. They will use this against you because you knew you were packing a gun and you chose to consume judgement-altering alcohol anyway.


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

I am not sure I like it either. We who oppose gun control are quick to point out that guns do not create violence, people use guns to create violence. So our efforts to minimize violence should focus on the people who create violence and not the inanimate and unintelligent tools they use. It is so easy to get a cc permit in Utah that the only real requirement is to pass a background check. So all this law will do is make it easier for people who cannot pass a background check to carry concealed. It seems to me that this is a step in the wrong direction.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

I tend to agree with longbow. I also wonder how cops feel about this. I don't know, but it would seem to me that illegal concealed gun = probable cause. So if there is no such thing as an illegal concealed gun, (excepting a round in the pipe), couldn't police lose a useful edge against these punks? Not saying that every guy with an illegal gun is necessarily a bad guy at all. Just saying that I know of instances in which an illegal gun started investigations that turned up something far more serious.

Today, if a cop stops a gangbanger and finds a concealed weapon, he has cause for detention, search and even arrest. Remove the permit requirement and he has nothing at all.

Every cop I've dealt with, having seen a permit, has been cool with me packing. Will that attitude change when anybody and everybody can pack?


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I'm sorry, but I am not in favor of uncontrolled concealed carry. I think that the current system that we have is great and fosters responsible carry. While I am always leery about control, this is one place where I think that it is beneficial.------SS


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Every American should be able to carry without a CCP....the 2nd doesn't say anything about a permit. Why are we all guilty first? And _then_ have to prove our worth? I'm calling horsechit on this one.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

.45 said:


> Every American should be able to carry without a CCP....the 2nd doesn't say anything about a permit. Why are we all guilty first? And _then_ have to prove our worth? I'm calling horsechit on this one.


A-FREAKIN-MEN!


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I don't think it's about proving worth or guilt, I think it's about training and awareness. Also, there are alot of things that could and should disqualify you from being able to carry. Like a domestic violence conviction. If there is no permit system, there is no way to revoke a permit. I don't see the CCP process as proving anything as long as it is an easy process available to anyone, which it is. Going over the law and gun safety (much like hunter safety) is a good thing in my opinion and only serves to protect those who want to carry. It really has nothing to do with the second amendment. 

As far as your statement about every American, I strongly disagree. There are many who have no business carrying a firearm and that is just a fact. Hence there must be a process to protect the public from those types of folks, ie criminals, mentally ill, certain substance abusers etc. I know that we are under a lot of pressure right now, but come on, try to think rationally.

One thing I would like to see changed is the two month wait. I say do a preliminary background check like during the purchase of a firearm then issue the permit immediately after the class. If the Department of Public Safety finds something at a later time, let them revoke the permit then.----SS


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

*A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state........*

Maybe the permit isn't such a bad idea.

There are plenty of reasons to allow, or restrict, either option. It will still be illegal to carry in a "gun free school zone" without a permit. So, Finn, the cops will still have probable cause to stop the 'bangers at your school. And if they have a criminal record, they will still be restricted from possessing a weapon either way they choose to carry it.
Would you rather have those who choose open carry now, not have the option to cover up when their choice to carry makes Momma and the kids nervous down at the grocery store?
There are good points on both sides of this debate.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sawsman said:


> .45 said:
> 
> 
> > Every American should be able to carry without a CCP....the 2nd doesn't say anything about a permit. Why are we all guilty first? And _then_ have to prove our worth? I'm calling horsechit on this one.
> ...


 Plus 100 MILLION! I don't give a rip about a cop and 'probable cause' when it comes to my God given rights that are protected.....NOT given.....by the 2nd Amendment! I am baffled as to how easily people give up their liberties for so-called safety. Notice I said "so-called safety"as opposed to actual safety! All a ccp does is put you on a list....I refuse to ask, let alone pay anyone in order to carry protection however I deem appropriate! I carry concealed on a regular basis, my permit is the freaking US Consitution.......which I have a copy with me at all times as well....!!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> I don't think it's about proving worth or guilt, I think it's about training and awareness. Also, there are alot of things that could and should disqualify you from being able to carry.


 Training and awareness, code words used to limit liberties! As for disqualifications, Google what folks like Janet Reno have to say about such........it's a step to complete bans! Right now there are members of Congress wanting to disqualify veterans due to PTSD's or brain injuries, or depression, or numerous other reasons. A free people doesn't need training nor permission to protect their selves, their liberties, and their property!


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Unfortunately, abuse of power seems to have some gunshy of any regulation. I feel that some regulation is both good and necessary in almost any case. That's how we all get along, we agree to abide by certain rules of society. Training and awareness have nothing to do with limiting anything other than accidents, injuries, and mistakes. Just because evil factions use rules to further their cause does not mean that all rules are bad. I am as much of a gun and freedom person as exists, but I think that there are necessary rules that must be enforced, period. The big challenge is coming up with the right rules and opposing the bad ones on an individual basis avoiding stereotypical ideas like "training and awareness are codewords used to limit liberties" Relate your arguement to driver training and see how much sense it makes. Remember that not all, or many, who want to pursue arming themselves to protect their selves, their liberties, and their property come from a pedigree of gun ownership and familiarity. If training is good for soldiers, and good for cops, why is it bad for citizens?

I agree with you unconditionally when it comes to one's property including one's car, but we may have to disagree when it comes to carrying a loaded, concealed weapon in a public place. I want to know that someone taking that responsibility has at least gone over the basics of safety, and the law. Just my opinion.----SS


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Since Utah is an open carry state and you don't need a permit for that I always thought the concealed carry permit was dumb.

But I would hope that anyone that takes the responsibility to carry a gun would also be responsible enough to get trained to do so. But I don't like the idea of it being legislated.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

This new (if passed) CC law *DOES NOT supplant the current CCW permit*. In fact it is inferior to having a CC permit for the same reason that non-CCP Open Carry (mentioned above) is inferior. That is - *it does NOT allow the carrier to have a round in the chamber* (_need *2* actions to fire the weapon_).

(_The "Shoot Me First" tactical aspect of OC will not be discussed as we are talking Rights here_)

Therefore, like is the case with NON-CC permit Open carriers, you would have to rack the slide first, or require 2 ****s of a revolver hammer to fire. So it is tactically inferior to those licensed to have a CC permit who are ready to go instantly with one in the chamber.

Licensed CC people can also carry this way Open as well (chambered round).

Of course not having a Utah CC permit would also disallow CC in other reciprocal States which is 33+ states or so. So a CC permit is a better idea despite the legislature passing this new loosening of restrictions. They maybe a couple of states that have reciprocity with non-permit CC out-of-staters, but very limited.

###################################################

I am always surprised on this forum by those who feel that self defense is not an inalienable Right, but rather a Privilege granted them by the government. Therefore those with the Privilege point of view must always cede their ability to defend themselves to government whim. They should be very happy with the California/New York CC system of May Issue where you have to beg a local authority and can be denied for any reason whatsoever with no reason need to be given. Utah has a Shall Issue permit that forces the authorities to issue unless there is a criminal record reason not to.

Of course anyone seriously interested in self defense should become proficient with both the gun and tactics, but to deny a person the right to defend themselves because they aren't "trained" puts serious responsibility on those who would deny such a person. Statistics show that overall, civilians in defensive situations acquit themselves as well as the police in hit ratio despite the lack of extensive formal training. Better than NYC cops for that matter!

The State of Utah is merely giving blessing to a Right you already have. Like any Right, you should seek to use it responsibly and safely. I wonder what those who feel that the rights conferred by the 2nd Amendment would feel about government-mandated training and licensing to exercise their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion? Certainly we have seen dangers and abuses of both of those rights - just like we have seen that a certain minority of those who CCs or OCs can do stupid things. Even licensed hunters do stupid or illegal things, despite the Hunter Safety and license.

The fact that those in the capitol are radical enough to more closely restore the people's rights back more in harmony with the intentions of the Founding Fathers in the 2nd Amendment and in harmony with Supreme Court rulings (Heller, McDonald) is to be applauded.
However there are always those people who want to control the unwashed masses because they fear what those people may do if given freedom. These people have been in control of our country for so long that it has become normal for Americans to believe that Rights are government-granted and should be tightly regulated - as least as applied to the untrustworthy masses.
In that case, the whole trend of government believing in the Average Joe must cause fear. Just because you hunt with a gun doesn't mean you are Pro-Rights. Obviously some hunters aren't.

It is sad that people nowadays have forgotten that WE THE PEOPLE have RIGHTS. Government doesn't grant us POWER - WE grant Government Power in order to protect our rights - not license them.


----------



## Dekashika (Oct 23, 2007)

Well said Frisco Pete!


----------



## Stickboy (Oct 28, 2010)

I am with Frisco on this one. If you want a permit feel free to get one, but should not be necessary to carry in the two functions configuration.


----------



## guner (Sep 25, 2007)

Very well stated Frisco ! :O||:


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

I agree with Frisco in that any responsible person should be able to carry concealed. I don't think his reply was a rebuttle to my post even though he sees it in a different way than I do. I'm just saying I think everyone should take the CCW course so they know the legal and ethical ramifications of living the concealed carry lifestyle. Most people wouldn't know the incredible responsibility that comes with packin' concealed heat.


----------



## wapiti67 (Oct 2, 2007)

then read Pete's book...it is far more informative then a CCW course.


----------



## jpolson (Jun 12, 2011)

Frisco Pete for President!

Self defense is an inalienable right. The Second Amendment is for protection against tyranny (foreign or domestic).


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

FWIW - Inaliable Right is a term used in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And while the Declaration is an amazing and inspiring document, and provides a theoretical foundation for the Constitution, it has no force of law, is not part of law, nor does it insure anything. Don't get me wrong, I am inspired by the words and principles it contains, but it has no connection to our legal system. It was written 11 years prior to there even being a legal system.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

longbow said:


> I agree with Frisco in that any responsible person should be able to carry concealed. I don't think his reply was a rebuttle to my post even though he sees it in a different way than I do. I'm just saying I think everyone should take the CCW course so they know the legal and ethical ramifications of living the concealed carry lifestyle. Most people wouldn't know the incredible responsibility that comes with packin' concealed heat.


sshhh you make out that you are some sort of secret agent man :shock: get a life


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

I really dont see the reason for this law. Unless things have changed, you are required to inform an officer you are carrying if you get pulled over. How many will know this if they dont have some sort of training.

If you can carry it unloaded, what good is it. By the time most people get the gun out and loaded, they are dead.

If you archery hunt or muzzle loader hunt, you still cannot carry the gun. The only exception to that law is those with a permit.


----------



## jpolson (Jun 12, 2011)

GaryFish said:


> FWIW - Inaliable Right is a term used in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And while the Declaration is an amazing and inspiring document, and provides a theoretical foundation for the Constitution, it has no force of law, is not part of law, nor does it insure anything. Don't get me wrong, I am inspired by the words and principles it contains, but it has no connection to our legal system. It was written 11 years prior to there even being a legal system.


I realize that "inalienable rights" are not law, they are a "natural law" that was considered by the framers to be universal without the need of a blessing from a legal system or government.


----------



## jpolson (Jun 12, 2011)

reb8600 said:


> I really dont see the reason for this law. Unless things have changed, you are required to inform an officer you are carrying if you get pulled over. How many will know this if they dont have some sort of training.


From the Utah Dept. of Public Safety-



> If I get stopped by a police officer, do I, as a permit holder, have to tell the officer that I have a gun in my possession?
> 
> Although there is no legal requirement to identify yourself to a law enforcement officer, it is recommended to do so.
> 
> If an officer finds or sees a gun on your person during their contact with you, and you have not identified yourself as a permit holder in legal possession of a firearm, the officer may assume you are carrying the gun illegally and may take defensive action. For the safety of all involved, it is recommended to immediately identify yourself to the officer as a permit holder in possession of a handgun. This action gives the officer some assurance they are most likely dealing with a law abiding citizen.


http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FAQ.html#2


----------



## ckamanao (Mar 20, 2010)

I believe that a LARGE part of carrying responsibly is the knowledge of how to shoot and when to shoot. My dept has 3 officers who have not been to the academy yet but have shot the 60 round qualification course and passed. And the last thing I will do is call for backup when these 3 officers are on duty. Luckily I work in a region many miles away from them. The fact of the matter is....they dont know tactics and firearm handling skills. I'm more likely to get a round in the back of the head than not. That is a dept wide belief as well.
People can say all they want about "code words", "government labels", whatever....the fact of the matter is: a man shows up where you are while on an outing with your family. He pulls out a gun, shoots one person you don't know and threatens others. You are not in a position to draw your weapon, of which you have fired countless rounds through and trained with, to defend your family and those around you. BUT, Bob over here can and draws his weapon, of which spends most of its time in its holster other than killing a couple of water jugs in the west desert every other year. He takes aim and you realize your three year old daughter is a bit behind and to the left of the bad guy. Do you trust him to take that shot? HELL NO!!!
I could possibly take that shot if I had to. Because I've taken the time, the RESPOSIBILITY, to TRAIN with my firearm.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

jpolson said:


> reb8600 said:
> 
> 
> > I really dont see the reason for this law. Unless things have changed, you are required to inform an officer you are carrying if you get pulled over. How many will know this if they dont have some sort of training.
> ...


If an officer needs or wants to know, he can ask. There is no need nor law to volunteer information.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

I'll throw this tid bit out here you go and buy a gun & get a background check. You want to carry your weapon around with you hunting. But you can't because you have to have a special permit unless it is an open carry. Which can't always work out this way due to weather and clothing that you are wearing
so you apply for a permit and have to submit to another background check. This isn't right to have a permission just to carry your weapon around.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Carrying a loaded concealed weapon in public, in people's private businesses, and on private property of others is a huge responsibility. One that I believe stretches the second amendment to it's limits. While there is no doubt about your right to do whatever you want in your own home, you don't necessarily have the right to carry in my home or business. I think that the CCW system that we have does a great job of training those who want to carry, and giving peace of mind to those who might be somewhat skeptical of people carrying guns around them. I would be willing to bet that if the state goes to an open, uncontrolled, concealed carry that you will see many business and private property owners adopting bans on weapons on their property. Remeber that just because you have a right to do something doesn't always mean you should. Like the gentleman who carried his AR-15 into the department store. Did he have the right, yes. Did his act bother a lot of people and sway their opinion in a negative way toward our cause? Most probably. Over the top legislation in our state could also possibly effect the reciprocity that those with Utah CCW permits enjoy in other states. While I respect those who oppose any regulation on concealed carry, my opinion is that the Governer should veto this one. Flame away boys, you wont hurt my feelings or change my mind.------SS


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> I think that the CCW system that we have does a great job of *training* those who want to carry,


That's funny SS....tell me about all that training you had when you got your CCW.

Shooting, drawing, reloading? When to approach, when to withdraw? etc. etc. etc. The CCW does not prove a person has had training of any sorts. It does however show that a person has kept their nose clean for awhile.....that is all.

Two months??? Got my CC in 2 days.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Finnegan said:


> I also wonder how cops feel about this.


 :roll:


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

lets not forget about the huge responsibiltiy with carrying a weapon. some of you are so paranoid about someone carrying a weapon under thier jacket but you do not have a problem with a 12 year old packing around a rifle or shotgun hunting. :shock: :roll:


----------



## BerryNut (Dec 29, 2008)

After reading a few posts on this, I am happy that many think this bill in a bad idea. The reason this bill passed with a 2/3 vote is because legislatures are too chicken to vote for whats right and vote to get re-elected. They are afraid if they vote against this bill they will not get the votes needed next time they are up for re-election. I hope Herbert vetos this bill. It would be nice to see him doing something rational for a change. I also hope that after he vetos the bill, enough of us who dont agree with the bill have emailed and called out local officials and let them know that while we want our 2nd amendment protected, we dont wont this bill passed. Then when it goes to a vote again, it wont get the 2/3 vote. I am all for CC, but as has been said, this is am irrational bill set off by the hype of the gun war going on right now between the left and right. THis bill is way too far right wing and makes it all too easy for insane, criminal, and evil people to carry a weapon. If you dont like this bill, make your voice heard.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

BerryNut said:


> THis bill is way too far right wing and makes it all too easy for* insane*, *criminal*, and *evil* people to carry a weapon.


There is a lot of truth to that BerryNut!

[attachment=0:257u1y7s]OBAMA_SHOOTING_GUN_1359830418.jpg[/attachment:257u1y7s]


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

I also want to know what "training" goes on in CCW classes. I don't need one but took the class with my wife. I spent 4 hours listening to people ask if they could shoot someone for raping their cat or what if someone is on my land, etc. It was a joke. I did learn the difference between a revolver and semi auto though. The class is a joke. Do away with it. Hopefully Herbie will sign the bill. I don't have much faith in him though.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Um Berry Nut, insane people carry everyday w/o a CCP. As well as most criminals. Lets even the odds. I feel.much safer knowing the clowns i was in the class with are packing.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

BerryNut said:


> . THis bill is way too far right wing and makes it all too easy for insane, criminal, and evil people to carry a weapon.


this statement makes a lot of sense :O•-: :roll: o-|| just like a AWB and universal BCI will stop the insane , criminal and evil people from obtaining a weapon


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

What are the monumental changes that this bill makes in the real world? I will allow a person who is legally carrying an unloaded weapon to cover it. Will it make it more likely that a criminal will carry a gun? I'm sure that they are all rejoicing now that they can conceal a weapon that they cannot legally possess. Like they give a **** about following the law of the land. They are criminals, and criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. This bill only applies to people that are already law abiding citizens, who are legally carrying a side arm, and want to put on a coat that would cover their weapon. Utah is already a right to carry state. You can carry openly in public if your gun is unloaded. This bill simply allows that legally carried weapon to be covered. Nothing more.


----------



## Greenhead_Slayer (Oct 16, 2007)

I am suprised how many people on here are not in support of this bill.

We'd be OUTRAGED if the government required a permit to exercise freedom of religion Sunday on our way to church, or if the government had to issue us a permit to exercise freedom of speech, what difference is that and requiring a permit to conceal a weapon? It is ridiculous to me that my wife who gets off of work at 3 AM can't legally carry an unloaded firearm in her purse as she walks out to her car because the government hasn't sent her a plastic card in the mail. What a bunch of crock.

It is the mindsets like this that allow ridiculous laws to be passed that result in this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -gun-burg/

Uncle Ted states it well.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

The important training that was gone over in my CCW class regarded the LAWs involved in carrying a weapon and using it for self defense. The instructor exhibited a great deal of knowlege and experience in the matter and explained the laws in a fashion that even the idiots in the class could understand. Don't you think that it is prudent to share the notion that you can't use deadly force in Utah to protect property? Do you really think that anyone who straps on a gun will inherently know this? Why set someone up to conduct and illegal shooting because they don't understand the complexities of the law. Another point is the discussion of the limits of the permit as far as where and when you can carry. If this law passes, how many will end up in hot water for carrying where they shouldn't be?

Here is my basic opinion. Laws are designed to pretty much cover anything that happens in your house. Even one ignorant to the law can protect their house and be safe. But, whenever you decide to pack a weapon out away from your house, the rules are different and the chances go up that you will be involved in an altercation. Don't you think that reason would call for some basic training? You all speak from the perspective of those familiar with guns and the law. What about the other 80% of society who really need firearm safety and introduction to related laws. I guess all trainings are not the same because I am very familiar with guns and laws, yet I still learned alot and got great insight in the class. Maybe we need to do some QAQC of CCW classes. Maybe there are just alot of know-it-all's out there who are too arrogant to realize the benefit of good instruction.----SS


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

Greenhead_Slayer said:


> I am suprised how many people on here are not in support of this bill.
> 
> We'd be OUTRAGED if the government required a permit to exercise freedom of religion Sunday on our way to church, or if the government had to issue us a permit to exercise freedom of speech, what difference is that and requiring a permit to conceal a weapon? It is ridiculous to me that my wife who gets off of work at 3 AM can't legally carry an unloaded firearm in her purse as she walks out to her car because the government hasn't sent her a plastic card in the mail. What a bunch of crock.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> The important training that was gone over in my CCW class regarded the LAWs involved in carrying a weapon and using it for self defense. The instructor exhibited a great deal of knowlege and experience in the matter and explained the laws in a fashion that even the idiots in the class could understand. Don't you think that it is prudent to share the notion that you can't use deadly force in Utah to protect property? Do you really think that anyone who straps on a gun will inherently know this? Why set someone up to conduct and illegal shooting because they don't understand the complexities of the law. Another point is the discussion of the limits of the permit as far as where and when you can carry. If this law passes, how many will end up in hot water for carrying where they shouldn't be?
> 
> *Here is my basic opinion. Laws are designed to pretty much cover anything that happens in your house. Even one ignorant to the law can protect their house and be safe. But, whenever you decide to pack a weapon out away from your house, the rules are different and the chances go up that you will be involved in an altercation*. Don't you think that reason would call for some basic training? You all speak from the perspective of those familiar with guns and the law. What about the other 80% of society who really need firearm safety and introduction to related laws. I guess all trainings are not the same because I am very familiar with guns and laws, yet I still learned alot and got great insight in the class. Maybe we need to do some QAQC of CCW classes. Maybe there are just alot of know-it-all's out there who are too arrogant to realize the benefit of good instruction.----SS


Mr. SShooter,
You are implying that the only proper firearms training comes from CCW instruction and that the public are completely devoid of common sense when handling a firearm outside the confines of their own homes.

I for one can tell you that the Conceal Carry instruction I received was, in no way responsible for my legal, ethical, proficiency or safe ownership or use of a firearm in this or any other state. Millions of hours are spent in Utah with recreational and other legal uses of firearms in Utah with far less than 1% incident of accident occurring compared to driving a car or most other activities that Utah residents are involved in. From a risk and legal stand point gun safety is so far down the totem pole that it is a non issue as it relates to public safety.

I am so tired of the public perception that everyone must be secure and all must be equal that I could throw up.

If the Governor does not sign this bill into law he should be voted out in the next election and will have lost my support. 
Big


----------



## longbow (Mar 31, 2009)

sagebrush said:


> longbow said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Frisco in that any responsible person should be able to carry concealed. I don't think his reply was a rebuttle to my post even though he sees it in a different way than I do. I'm just saying I think everyone should take the CCW course so they know the legal and ethical ramifications of living the concealed carry lifestyle. Most people wouldn't know the incredible responsibility that comes with packin' concealed heat.
> ...


Sir, I have a great life already. And no I'm not a secret agent. When it comes to defending myself with a gun I do however know first hand of where I speak. I spent 58 days of pure hell in '91 in the gulf. I caused a few bedsheets to turn red. My hunting partner and I also used our concealed handguns to end a bad situation at a Montana reststop at 1am against a couple punks. Things didn't end well for one of them. My partner probably saved my life that night.

Sagebrush, I'm sorry if I led you to believe I'm something I'm not. I'm just a normal guy with a family I love who wants to legaly keep them safe.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

bigbr said:


> I am so tired of the public perception that everyone must be secure and all must be equal that I could throw up.
> 
> Big


 *A-FREAKING-MEN!*


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> Also, why would you want your wife carrying a useless, unloaded firearm for protection? Wouldn't it make alot more sense to go through the easy steps to get her trained and licensed, then let her carry a loaded weapon that would actually save her life if she were attacked? That's my main gripe with open carry and the potential of concealed, unloaded carry. I think that a unloaded gun can be more of a liability than help in a bad situation. Open carrying an unloaded gun makes you a defenseless target for a criminal. Why are you so **** worried about everyone else? If you want to take a course and get a cute little certificate that makes you all warm and fuzzy, go for it, but why FORCE that on everyone else? This Nanny State nonsense is beyond troublesome!
> 
> It boils down to the fact that, by societies standard, we require training and certification to do things that are potentially dangerous in a public setting. We require training, testing, and licensing to: drive a car, fly a plane, work in the medical services, operate powerful radio equipment, and countless other things. Why should carrying a firearm be any different. Remember that the Second Amendment bars infringement but provides for regulation.-------SS


 "Societies standards".......once called for legal slavery, rounded up people of certain skin color/nationally and putting them in camps, forced sterlizations, made people of certian skin colors only ride in the back of the bus........Rights are just that, RIGHTS. Any and ALL attempts to limit RIGHTS is tyranny and ALWAYS leads to misery. Here in 'conservative' Utah, "we" require extensive training before being "allowed" to cut hair, or file fingernails.............."societies standards".......!


----------



## NoShot (Nov 23, 2007)

I find it very disturbing, here on a forum that one would think would be very pro-2nd amendment and freedom loving, that so many are willing to give up their rights and/or take away the rights of others.

Between this thread and a few others in the last few weeks, WOW!


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I'm suprised that no one has brought up the point that the passing of this law would be bad because it is limited in scope to unloaded firearms. How does the Second Amendment provide that any citizen has the right to carry a concealed unloaded firearm, but not a loaded concealed one? It is funny to me how many folks are so excited over the right to carry around an unloaded gun. Maybe Herbert should send this one back to Congress and tell them to get it right including unlimited, loaded, concealed carry to all. The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about weapons being loaded or unloaded. Then again, it doesn't say alot of things that are attributed to it by special interest groups on both sides of the spectrum. I also find it amusing that people keep blindly bringing up "rights" what rights are at play here? ------SS


----------



## Greenhead_Slayer (Oct 16, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> [quote="Greenhead_Slayer":be320aom]I am suprised how many people on here are not in support of this bill.
> 
> We'd be OUTRAGED if the government required a permit to exercise freedom of religion Sunday on our way to church, or if the government had to issue us a permit to exercise freedom of speech, what difference is that and requiring a permit to conceal a weapon? It is ridiculous to me that my wife who gets off of work at 3 AM can't legally carry an unloaded firearm in her purse as she walks out to her car because the government hasn't sent her a plastic card in the mail. What a bunch of crock.
> 
> ...


[/quote:be320aom]

Comparing the Second Amendment to the first doesn't make sense? They are both CONSTITUTIONALLY protected rights. Requiring a permit for the one is no other different than requiring a permit for the others. Neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion carries implications of lethal force? Are you serious?? Have you ever heard of the Medieval Inquisition? How about the Puritans and their witch hunts? What about how Romans treated the Christians? Islamic Jihads? Buddhist Burma's after they discovered 2 empty tombs of the "spotless" men? The Mountain Meadows Massacre? We let those religions to continue (and rightfully so) without the need for a permit because it is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
Freedom of speech does more than hurt feelings, it is a factor in numerous shootings and contributes to a plethora of suicides. Go do a simple google search for bullied students and school shootings and you'll find 71.2 MILLION results. We don't require people to complete a course in order to know how to exercise that right "safely" because it is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Both of these constitutional rights have public health and safety ramifications but they don't require an OK from the government, neither should the second.
My wife is trained and competent in using a firearm. She has completed the highest achievement of Distinguished Expert through the NRA's marksmanship program. We shoot at the range regularly. She keeps a firearm in the house (loaded, may I add) with a 1 year old toddler and knows how to do so safely. Why should she have to sit through some 4 hour class that doesn't even cover actual shooting or range time? In the original post it says my wife has completed the course but is still waiting on her permit from the BCI. She should be able to carry a loaded gun, concealed or not, without a government issued permit.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Let's clarify something here...we are not talking about carrying "unloaded" weapons. We are talking about carrying loaded weapons without one in the chamber. Huge difference IMO.

The whole notion that a law abiding citizen would need to register with our government to conceal carry in the first place is silly. Therefore, this whole discussion is beyond ridiculas. Open carry, conceal carry, loaded, unloaded IS your constitutional right WITHOUT a stupid piece of paper


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

We are talking about unloaded weapons as defined by Utah law. It is ignorance of the law and assumptions made by uninformed people that are causing all of this debate. As I said before, this bill does nothing but allow a weapon that is already being carried legally, to be covered.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Loke said:


> We are talking about unloaded weapons as defined by Utah law. It is ignorance of the law and assumptions made by uninformed people that are causing all of this debate. As I said before, this bill does nothing but allow a weapon that is already being carried legally, to be covered.


I don't know if your comment is directed towards me. If so please be more direct. Am I wrong with my knowledge of the law?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Directly from the Utah Code:


> 76-10-502. When weapon deemed loaded.
> (1) For the purpose of this chapter, any pistol, revolver, shotgun, rifle, or other weapon described in this part shall be deemed to be loaded when there is an unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile in the firing position.
> (2) Pistols and revolvers shall also be deemed to be loaded when an unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile is in a position whereby the manual operation of any mechanism once would cause the unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile to be fired.
> (3) A muzzle loading firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinders.


A full magazine does not mean that the weapon is loaded.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Ok...That was my thoughts on the subject. Thanks.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

No, bwhntr, it was not directed specifically at you. Just to everyone that hasn't taken the time to read the law as it is written, and the bill that proposes a minor change to that law. Including all of the members of the news media that are making such a huge deal about it. 

I'm wondering why no one is making a stink about the bill prohibiting a person from smoking in his personally owned vehicle. After all, according to Utah law, a person's vehicle is considered to be an extension of their home, as the law applies to carrying a loaded handgun.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

+100!!!

I don't know about the smoking law. Is this the one pertaining to smoking in a vehicle with children in it?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> I'm suprised that no one has brought up the point that the passing of this law would be bad because it is limited in scope to unloaded firearms. How does the Second Amendment provide that any citizen has the right to carry a concealed unloaded firearm, but not a loaded concealed one? It is funny to me how many folks are so excited over the right to carry around an unloaded gun. Maybe Herbert should send this one back to Congress and tell them to get it right including unlimited, loaded, concealed carry to all. The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about weapons being loaded or unloaded. Then again, it doesn't say alot of things that are attributed to it by special interest groups on both sides of the spectrum. I also find it amusing that people keep blindly bringing up "rights" what rights are at play here? ------SS


 I could be mistaken, but based on this...and other posts of yours.......you seem to think the government issues citizens rights, which is WRONG! The sole purpose of the government is to protect rights, not grant/deny rights! This is something that should be common knowledge, but I fear it is rare to find citizens who grasp this basic eternal principle. As for what rights are at play here.........the main one I see is my God given right to protect my life, liberty, and property.....as well as the life, liberty, and property of my wife and children............ When someone tries to use FORCE to have me take a course, pay a fine (lets be honest and call it what it is!), and carry a certificate that the government issues saying I am now 'allowed' to carry protection as I see fit, they are NOT worried about liberty, and they **** sure are NOT worried about protecting life and/or property! Thus, such a person is trying to restrict my inalienable rights, all so that person(s) FEELS safer.............and you wonder why people get upset.... :? If you FEEL safer by taking a course, paying a fine, and carrying around a cute little piece of paper, go for it, just don't demand everyone else do likewise!


----------



## campfire (Sep 9, 2007)

Some interesting comments by the SLC chief of police yesterday. You can view the interview on KSL.com if you want to check how I am quoting him. He said all law enforcement officers assume every firearm is loaded and treat them accordingly. That is a no brainier. So should we. But he also said that when an officer encounters an armed citizen with a ccw permit, the knowledge that that citizen has had at least some training and has passed a background check gives the officer a level of confidence and assurance and the officer's actions are likely to reflect that. But when an officer encounters a weapon without a permit there is no such confidence and assurance and it is very possible that the actions of the officer will be more protective and more aggressive. This is from the SLC chief of police.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

And that is why I am not a fan of big city police chiefs. They are politicians, and usually pinheaded ones at that. I take his comments about officers being more aggressive as an admittance of having poorly trained/rogue cops, but thats just my take!


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

the chief of police from slc is related to feinstein who picks and chooses which laws to uphold.
just because a person has a gun on them does not make them a criminal, law abiding people tend to mind their own business. there are those few cowboys(being sarcastic) that think when they have their gun that they are above the rest of the populous. and like to strut their stuff. these are the ones that make this issue into a big deal.

maybe the chief of police should read this article
Federal Ct. Finds That Open Carry Does Not Give Cops Reasonable Suspicion To Stop 
http://www.fedagent.com/columns/case-la ... of-seizure


----------



## Greenhead_Slayer (Oct 16, 2007)

campfire said:


> Some interesting comments by the SLC chief of police yesterday. You can view the interview on KSL.com if you want to check how I am quoting him. He said all law enforcement officers assume every firearm is loaded and treat them accordingly. That is a no brainier. So should we. But he also said that when an officer encounters an armed citizen with a ccw permit, the knowledge that that citizen has had at least some training and has passed a background check gives the officer a level of confidence and assurance and the officer's actions are likely to reflect that. But when an officer encounters a weapon without a permit there is no such confidence and assurance and it is very possible that the actions of the officer will be more protective and more aggressive. This is from the SLC chief of police.


It isn't safe or accurate to say all officers will treat you better if you have a CFP. I got pulled over in Salt Lake a couple months ago for a burned out tail light. I had a choice whether or not to inform the officer I was a CFP carrier and had my firearm on me. I opted to tell this officer, he seemed especially antsy, probably because it was late at night on a weekend or whatever, so I kept both my hands on the steering wheel and informed him "Officer, I have a concealed firearm permit and I am in possession of my pistol on my right hip." He immediately called for backup and stayed at the window talking to me until the other officer showed up. Once the other officer could go on the passenger side of the vehicle and watch me clearly the first officer had me unholster my glock and give it to him while he ran my license and registration. I was a bit annoyed but I could somewhat understand so I complied. He took my glock from me and asked if it was loaded, I replied yes, so he points the gun right at me (with no clue what he was doing) and emptied the magazine, then racked the slide to empty it. :shock: It didn't even phase him he had a loaded gun pointed right at me. I filed a complaint and made a few phone calls, but you can guarantee I won't be telling any officers in the future that I am carrying a firearm.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

I thought that the officers were notified that you are a CCW permit holder when they run your drivers license. Is that not true?----SS


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

Springville Shooter said:


> I thought that the officers were notified that you are a CCW permit holder when they run your drivers license. Is that not true?----SS


The last one I spoke to knew it when he walked up to the window. I told him where the gun was when he asked. He didn't seem to be bugged about it. He even let me off with a lecture..and I really am going to slow down.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I had a kid run a stop sign 2 months ago and broadside me on my way home. When the officer got on scene asked for my license and info, I gave it to him and told him I had a CCP. He actually got annoyed that I told him and gave me a lecture that its not required people inform officers any more. I was kindof perplexed as he walked back to his car as I thought it was a respectful thing to do... /shrug


-DallanC


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> I thought that the officers were notified that you are a CCW permit holder when they run your drivers license. Is that not true?----SS


A perfect example of one of MANY reasons I have no desire to get a CCW! This Big Brother BS that is so readily accepted by citizens is perplexing to me................... :?


----------



## Greenhead_Slayer (Oct 16, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> I thought that the officers were notified that you are a CCW permit holder when they run your drivers license. Is that not true?----SS


That is kind of a grey area, I've heard both sides of yes and no. My experience (pretty limited, only twice) the officers didn't know or played like they didn't. Any police officers on here that could help clarify?


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

proutdoors said:


> Springville Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > I thought that the officers were notified that you are a CCW permit holder when they run your drivers license. Is that not true?----SS
> ...


It really is none of their business, especially in a car where it is already legal for anyone to have a weapon, concealed or not. I just heard a rumor that it came up on their computer either when they ran your registration or license and still don't know what the truth is. I personally do not volunteer information because there is really no benefit. If they need or want to know, they can ask. Some of the experiences above are harassment. Why would an officer require you to surrender and unload your gun for no reason? Or, better yet, how can they do that legally. No offence to the good officers, but one's like this need to be reminded of what a public servant is.----SS


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> Why would an officer require you to surrender and unload your gun for no reason?


because they have been indoctrinated by the media and our all knowing political leaders to believe that only bad guys and cops carry guns. If you ain't a cop you are surely a bad guy.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

A Veto from the Gov.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=24500945&nid=75 ... featured-1


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

so much for being pro 2nd amendment


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> so much for being pro 2nd amendment


 Anyone who ever thought Herbie was a 'conservative' hasn't been paying attention. Hopefully the Legislature will override his veto!


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

yea but we will all be safer seeing how only people that have some supposed training/piece of paper in learning the laws, which i can do by myself by just reading the law. oh ya and some common sense. before i forget i do know how to handle a gun for most folks this is not thier first rodeo


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> sagebrush said:
> 
> 
> > so much for being pro 2nd amendment
> ...


He's a coward. Just like stream access. He needs to go.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

People are stupid and dont remember their history... nearly everyone has forgotten that NO-ONE voted for herbet when he became Governor, HE NEVER RAN. He was made Governor when Hunstman stepped down. He never got a single vote from anyone to be governor... and now stupid people who vote based on names they recognize keep him (and other stupid officals) in office.


-DallanC


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

My guess is that this veto will be overthrown. Seems to me they it had the support before it even went to the governer. It would be interesting to see what percent of the public's support that this bill has. I was very suprised when the small sample taken in the poll on this site was very close. I would have figured that it would be a blow out among this crowd. 
While I have my own reservations about this bill, I do believe that if we are going to go through everything to pass legislation like this, why have the stupid stipulations requiring the weapon to be unloaded. Maybe some adjustment should be made before pursuing an override. Like I said, I am still not convinced, but, pass or fail, I think that a weapon carried concealed for self defense should probably be loaded. Either way, my bet is that this will soon be law.------SS


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> I think that a weapon carried concealed for self defense should probably be loaded. Either way, my bet is that this will soon be law.------SS


Well... there's the confusion. This bill isn't to allow you to carry concealed for self defense, per se. It is designed so that if you are out and about with a firearm that you can have it inside your coat if the weather turns nasty. As the law stands right now, you could be at the Hobble Creek Gun range, put your 1911 .45 in a shoulder holster, even without a round in the chamber, and if your jacket concealed it from view, you would be in violation of the law. This new law would change that. It would decriminalize inadvertent concealment. If you're going to be packing heat, and have one in the chamber, you gotta have the permit.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

Despite the veto, the one truth remains: If you are really serious about self defense and concealed carry, not only in Utah but other states as well, having a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit is THE way to go.
For serious people who want training on the when's, why's and responsibilities of true defensive CC and OC, the current system delivers that already.

So the less motivated, less serious, less interested among us it is a loss of general citizen rights. However for the rest of us with a CC permit it is a non-issue as we have superior rights than the proposed law allowed - albeit .gov sanctioned.


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

Greenhead_Slayer said:


> [quote="Springville Shooter":1u2ki4v9]I thought that the officers were notified that you are a CCW permit holder when they run your drivers license. Is that not true?----SS


That is kind of a grey area, I've heard both sides of yes and no. My experience (pretty limited, only twice) the officers didn't know or played like they didn't. Any police officers on here that could help clarify?[/quote:1u2ki4v9] It does show up when they run your drivers license. I have been pulled over a few times and each time I informed every officer that I had my permit and my weapon with me, more so out of courtesy, as I would appreciate that if I was the officer. The last time I was pulled over in Salt Lake County by UHP and I told the trooper his only words were "Don't show me yours and I won't show you mine!" Then he proceed to chew me out for having the audacity to pass a state trooper. But that is a story for another time. I have never heard any actual experiences of a firearm being held on to by police during a traffic stop.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

proutdoors said:


> A perfect example of one of MANY reasons I have no desire to get a CCW! This Big Brother BS that is so readily accepted by citizens is perplexing to me................... :?


I got my CCP so I could legally, drop my boy off at school after a morning of hunting with guns still in the truck (out of sight). /shrug

-DallanC


----------



## bigbr (Oct 24, 2007)

I have had my CCP for about 15 years, when you had to fill out your life story, get your local police chief or sheriff to sign for your integrity and qualify with shooting proficiency. I sat through a course for my wife about four years ago and decided that as much as they had streamlined the qualifications, Utah might as well put the course online and cut out the middlemen, who in my opinion could not qualify to be safety chiefs at a Boy scout firing range. In my humble opinion the only benefit afforded me by my permit is the fact that it saves me a seven dollar fee when i purchase a firearm.! 

The Governor in his letter stated that if it aint broke don't fix it. However as most people fail to realize it is broke. Every town, county, state and our country is broken and bankrupt I might add. FREEDOM AND FREE AGENCY have been whittled away to the point that we are now surfs and slaves to an immoral gagall of aristocrats that call themselves public servants. The sad part of all this is that the wolves now have a majority of the public buying into their BS.

If you are not actively fighting with each breath for freedom and free enterprise, then you my freind are a big part of the problem!!!!!!!
Big


----------

