• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

House committee OK'S gun bill

Kevin Jensen

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
2,313
Location
Santaquin, Utah, USA
imported post

I read this bill, and it does very little to change existing laws. KSL is making it sound like we are turning into the Wild Wild West, and that open carry is currently unlawful. My question is... Does anybody think that people will interperet these changes the wrong way? My thought is that some LEO's may think that open carry will only be lawful with a concealed firearm permit.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:
I read this bill, and it does very little to change existing laws. KSL is making it sound like we are turning into the Wild Wild West, and that open carry is currently unlawful. My question is... Does anymody think that people will interperet these changes the wrong way? My thought is that some LEO's may think that open carry will only be lawful with a concealed firearm permit.
To be clear, the bill does NOTHING to change existing law.

It simply removes ALL doubt and question on the part of over-paid, gun grabbing college administrators and their anti-self-defense lawyers.

As evidenced by the frequent debates over the 2nd amendment, it is clear that **someone** will always interpret the law the wrong way. Our goal is to reduce the number that are likely to do so.
 

Kevin Jensen

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
2,313
Location
Santaquin, Utah, USA
imported post

utbagpiper wrote:
To be clear, the bill does NOTHING to change existing law.
I wouldn't say it does nothing. Here is the text it will add to 76-10-501, in case anyone was wondering.

(3) "Concealed firearm permit" means a permit issued pursuant to Section 53-5-704
that permits, but does not require, concealment of the firearm on the permittee.


 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:
I wouldn't say it does nothing. Here is the text it will add to 76-10-501, in case anyone was wondering.

(3) "Concealed firearm permit" means a permit issued pursuant to Section 53-5-704
that permits, but does not require, concealment of the firearm on the permittee.


The bill makes NO changes to what is already perfectly legal under Utah law. It adds no new restrictions. It eliminates no current restrictions.

The addition of this definition is nothing but a clarification, making clear what any person who does not have a virulent anti-gun agenda--and two functioning brain cells-- (hence the problem with college admins and lawyers) has long since known and been able to deduce from current law. Hence, the existence of this web site and the preferred mode of carry for many who post here in the Utah section.

The bill is a "housekeeping" bill, or "technical clarification" in the language of the legislature.

For me to write that it does "nothing" may not be 100% technically correct, since it obviously adds a definition with some 2 dozen words to existing code, and slaps UoU president Young up side the head on the issue. But it is certainly a reasonable shorthand for "the bill makes NO changes to what is currently permissible or what is currently prohibited under existing law."

GOUtah! and every other Utah pro-RKBA organization of which I am aware is strongly supporting this bill.

Charles
 
Top