Duty to notify LEO's is gone.

imported post

This is something I read on UCC. Enjoy!

Firearms Instructors:

Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Wes Hutchins. I am an attorney practicing in Salt Lake City since 1993. I recently became a handgun owner and went through the firearms training course to obtain my concealed firearms permit. I enjoyed the course immensely, and it peaked my interest in Utah laws governing the use of firearms.

The purpose of this email is to inform you of a change in the Utah Administrative Code that previously purported to mandate that permit holders, if stopped by a police officer, must inform the officer that they are a permit holder and that they are either armed, or unarmed. (Hereinafter referred to as the "Inform Requirement"; see Utah Administrative Code R722-300-12)(I say "purported to mandate" since there is a dispute whether or not admin rules rise to the level of enforceable "law" -- a debate beyond the scope of this email).

I have conducted considerable research into the issue, and have learned that the Inform Requirement, along with all other provisions under the Admin Code pertaining to concealed firearms, no longer exist. That's right, they are not current law in Utah, as of approximately May of 2008. I am confident informing you of this change in the law for the following reasons:

(1) If you research the Utah Administrative Code online (you can run a Google search to see all the different references), the website identifying the "effective" provisions no longer lists R722-300-1 through -17 (example: go to [url]http://www.rules.utah.gov/main[/url] and then go to "Public Safety" section, link to Title 722, and it will give you the rules "As in effect on May 1, 2008," and R722-300-1 et seq. is not among them);

(2) If you go to the Department of Public Safety website ([url]http://das.utah.gov.main[/url]) and go to Concealed Weapons, then click on Concealed Firearm Law and Rule References (under General Information), and then click on Concealed Firearm Rule (third from the bottom), it then "thinks" for a minute or two and gives you a "File Not Found" screen; and

(3) I have spoken to individuals at DPS and at the Utah Administrative offices, all of whom confirm that the Concealed Firearm Permit Rule, including the Inform Requirement, is not presently in effect.

Interestingly, as part of my recent research, I have learned that DPS is in the process of promulgating a new rule - one which is apparently going to close the gap that presently allows out-of-state and even foreign individuals to obtain their permits in Utah. Nobody has been able to tell me if the new proposed rule will resurrect the Inform Requirement, or some version thereof, but I suspect it will. There will be a 30-day public comment period on the proposed rule, once it is presented to Utah Administrative Services. Whatever your position is on the Inform Requirement, I encourage you to exercise your freedom of speech and let it be known. You can review and comment on new admin rules by getting on the Admin Services website at and follow link to Administrative Rules, then to Proposed Rules. That takes you to the Utah State Bulletin, and if you go to the bottom of that page you can subscribe to be notified of any changes to the Bulletin.

Most of you may already be aware of the current status of the Inform Requirement, and further aware of all the foregoing resources for information. I apologize for any redundancy. My goal is to help inform folks of the change, and to encourage healthy debate on the issue when the new proposed rule comes out. One thing is for sure - it's going to be interesting!

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, or if I might be able to provide you with any additional information, feel free to respond to this email, or to contact me at my office. Also, feel free to forward this email on to anyone in your "network" that you believe may be interested in these issues. If you would like more information about me or our law offices, you can visit our firm's website at [url]http://www.scalleyreading.com[/url].

Have a great day!

Best regards,

Wesley D. Hutchins
SCALLEY READING BATES
HANSEN & RASMUSSEN, P.C.
Beneficial Tower
15 West South Temple, Suite 600
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
(801) 531-7870 (voice line)
(801) 531-7968 (facsimile)

imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:

...I have learned that DPS is in the process of promulgating a new rule...You can review and comment on new admin rules....

Click to expand...

SO, we actually have the opportunity to DO something about something? I for one am going to certainly do more research on this matter.

Thank you for the info Sarge.

imported post

Two thoughts:

1-Utah law is CLEAR and no administrative rule can so alter the granting of permits as to arbitrarily prevent non-residents from getting them.

2-Any cop who doesn't like OC should also like to see the notification rule gone. After all, if we don't want to know about legally carried guns, no reason to have to bring one up just because of routine traffic stop. RIGHT?

Charles

imported post

Agreed, Charles. I do, however, have a question.

Was this administrative rule ever enforceable to begin with?

Does the Department of Public Safety have the authority to make new rules pertaining to firearms?

76-10-500. Uniform law.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state. Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be:
(a) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in his possession or lawfully under his control; or
(b) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(2) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms.

imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:

Agreed, Charles. I do, however, have a question.

Was this administrative rule ever enforceable to begin with?

Does the Department of Public Safety have the authority to make new rules pertaining to firearms?

76-10-500. Uniform law.
(1) The individual right to keep and bear arms being a constitutionally protected right, the Legislature finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state. Except as specifically provided by state law, a citizen of the United States or a lawfully admitted alien shall not be:
(a) prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing, selling, transferring, transporting, or keeping any firearm at his place of residence, property, business, or in any vehicle lawfully in his possession or lawfully under his control; or
(b) required to have a permit or license to purchase, own, possess, transport, or keep a firearm.
(2) This part is uniformly applicable throughout this state and in all its political subdivisions and municipalities. All authority to regulate firearms shall be reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities. Unless specifically authorized by the Legislature by statute, a local authority or state entity may not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or rule pertaining to firearms.

Click to expand...

That's interesting... You would have to read the wording where the state gave BCI the authority to issue permits to see what authority they give... I've never thought about this before.

Time to put on my reading cap.

ETA:

They are given permission to make rules, but specifically to make rules regarding issuing and revoking permits...(I'm still reading)
53-5-704.

(16) The commissioner may make rules in accordance with Title 63G, Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, necessary to administer this chapter.

imported post

I believe their authority to make rules to issue and revoke permits may have covered this, but just barely. Frankly, given the pissy attitude of the new administration toward CCW in general, I think it time to stop playing nice, politically speaking.

We ought to push for some penalties for failure to issue within the required 60 days; eliminate the notifcaiton requirement entirely (cops don't want to know about legal guns, right), and otherwise make life unpleasant for gun grabbers who accept positions that require them to work with gun owners.

Charles

imported post

Well, I'm not so sure it does give them authority to make a notification rule... Mabye it does, but here is the email I sent asking for clarification.



Hi, I noticed that the BCI rules were no longer posted, and
it sparked a question in my mind. BCI has made a rule that
a concealed permit holder must notify a Law Enforcement
Officer that he/she is carrying a concealed weapon. I searc
hed the state law for anything that gives BCI the authority
to make a rule pertaining to firearms, and only found a
section allowing BCI to make rules regarding the administrat
ion of permits, not how a permit holder must act during a
stop. Under Utah Code 53-5-704 section 13, it says: The
commissioner may make rules in accordance with Title 63G,
Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, necessary to
administer this chapter.

However, nothing indicates that BCI has the authority to
regulate behavior during an encounter with law enforcement.

I am admittedly not a scholar by any means, and even less
so when it comes to legal code, but this seems to be pretty
clear.
Maybe I'm getting worked up over nothing, since I've heard
a rumor that the rules were getting re-worked anyway, but
if not, I'd appreciate some guidance on what authority BCI
acts under making a rule pertaining to firearms.
Thanks,
Jared

imported post

jaredbelch wrote:

Well, I'm not so sure it does give them authority to make a notification rule... Mabye it does, but here is the email I sent asking for clarification.



Hi, I noticed that the BCI rules were no longer posted, and
it sparked a question in my mind. BCI has made a rule that
a concealed permit holder must notify a Law Enforcement
Officer that he/she is carrying a concealed weapon. I searc
hed the state law for anything that gives BCI the authority
to make a rule pertaining to firearms, and only found a
section allowing BCI to make rules regarding the administrat
ion of permits, not how a permit holder must act during a
stop. Under Utah Code 53-5-704 section 13, it says: The
commissioner may make rules in accordance with Title 63G,
Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, necessary to
administer this chapter.

However, nothing indicates that BCI has the authority to
regulate behavior during an encounter with law enforcement.

I am admittedly not a scholar by any means, and even less
so when it comes to legal code, but this seems to be pretty
clear.
Maybe I'm getting worked up over nothing, since I've heard
a rumor that the rules were getting re-worked anyway, but
if not, I'd appreciate some guidance on what authority BCI
acts under making a rule pertaining to firearms.
Thanks,
Jared

Click to expand...

Thanks for getting that email out - I am curious as to how they will respond. Let us know as soon as they do!

imported post

They're going to find out anyways since your CFP is tied to your DL. What are you going to say when he asks you about it?

"Sorry officer, I'm not required by law to talk to you about that matter except to tell you I won't talk about that matter..."

imported post

xRapidDavex wrote:

They're going to find out anyways since your CFP is tied to your DL. What are you going to say when he asks you about it?

"Sorry officer, I'm not required by law to talk to you about that matter except to tell you I won't talk about that matter..."

Click to expand...

IF he runs my license he'll know about it... Not every stop gets a license run, and not every encounter with police is during a traffic stop. Besides, if he already knows, then why should I have to go through the formality of telling him? Why should I be required to list my possessions every time I talk to a cop?

Umm lets see.... Officer, i'm required to tell you I have a set of keys, a wallet, a pocket knife, a credit card, a set of nail clippers, etc... Oh yeah and a gun. But you already knew that one:lol::lol::lol:

[/sarcastic rant]

But seriously, if this rule went away for real, and a cop came back and said: Why didn't you tell me you had a permit? I'd say something to the effect of: Well I figured you would find out when you ran my license anyway... Or I'd keep my mouth shut and take the ticket... Based on how I felt the stop was going.

Really it comes down to this, me informing him should be based on my judgment, not on that of BCI.

imported post

xRapidDavex wrote:

They're going to find out anyways since your CFP is tied to your DL. What are you going to say when he asks you about it?

"Sorry officer, I'm not required by law to talk to you about that matter except to tell you I won't talk about that matter..."

Click to expand...

I think the officer would probably respect you more if you showed him that you were educated on the law and simply state that you are only required to inform him if you are actually armed. Besides, when he tries to pull a criminal history on you, it shows up blank anyway. If anything, the officer should become very relaxed knowing he is dealing with somebody with no criminal record and a CFP. Even if you were carrying and "forgot" to inform him for one reason or another, you would probably just get a stern warning or chewing out unless the LEO was really out to get you for something. That's just my opinion.

Kevin

imported post

I have yet to be pulled over w/out my license being run. You guys must be lucky. Seems like they are trying to pin whatever they can on me.

imported post

xRapidDavex wrote:

I have yet to be pulled over w/out my license being run. You guys must be lucky. Seems like they are trying to pin whatever they can on me.

Click to expand...

Sorry about your bad luck! I must just be too cool !

imported post

33itmefs wrote:

xRapidDavex wrote:

Seems like they are trying to pin whatever they can on me.

Click to expand...

:celebrateCan you say paranoia? Put on your tin foil hat, everything will be ok.

Click to expand...

uhhhh, what?

imported post

33itmefs wrote:

xRapidDavex wrote:

33itmefs wrote:

xRapidDavex wrote:

Seems like they are trying to pin whatever they can on me.

Click to expand...

:celebrateCan you say paranoia? Put on your tin foil hat, everything will be ok.

Click to expand...

uhhhh, what?

Click to expand...

If you dont get it, nevermind. Im sure plenty of your peers do.

Click to expand...

So since my license is run every time, I now need a tinfoil hat to protect myself from government ray beams?

imported post

33itmefs wrote:

xRapidDavex wrote:

33itmefs wrote:

xRapidDavex wrote:

Seems like they are trying to pin whatever they can on me.

Click to expand...

:celebrateCan you say paranoia? Put on your tin foil hat, everything will be ok.

Click to expand...

uhhhh, what?

Click to expand...

If you dont get it, nevermind. Im sure plenty of your peers do.

Click to expand...

imported post

snarf, snarf buddy! :monkey

he,he,ha,ha to the funny farm? pink ribbons and puppy dog tails? put on your waders and create a duck from straw?

CRYPTIC METAPHOR!! :lol:

FYI, you aren't required by law to tell us what meds you're on.

aaaaaaand thread hijacked...