• 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.

SLC Code: NO Loaded Firearms on Streets

ScottyT

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
imported post

Have any of you seen this:

11.48.040 Carrying loaded firearm prohibited.

A. Carrying Loaded Firearm in Vehicle or on Street. It is unlawful for any person to carry a loaded firearm in a vehicle or on any public street within the corporate limits of the city.

B. Definition. A firearm is deemed to be loaded when:

1. There is an unexpended cartridge, shell or projectile in the firing position;
2. Revolvers and pistols shall also be deemed loaded when the unexpended cartridge, shell or projectile is in a position that 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. (Ord. 19-95 § 1, 1995; prior code § 32-6-6.1)

Has anyone inquired with the city as to whether they would try to enforce this illegal code?
 

ScottyT

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
imported post

Just surfing the SLC Code for airgun resrictions. This is pretty much the same as the State Law, but it omits the critical "Unless otherwise permitted by law" clause.

Put on your letter-writing hats folks! They have to include the exemption for permit holders!
 

xRapidDavex

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
431
Location
, ,
imported post

Well if this is only SLC code, then you could just hit 'em with the good 'ol Uniform Code law.
 

jaredbelch

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
545
Location
Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
imported post

I brought up a similar thread about SL County having illegal ordinances on the books. I'm in the process of preparing remarks to go to the county council meeting and ask that it be removed...
 

ScottyT

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
imported post

We really need to find a one-armed 18-20 year old to lead the charge to eliminate the whole "Utah Unloaded" thing altogether. He can't get a CFP, he can't quickly rack the slide, so should he be denied the right to self defense?
 

ScottyT

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
imported post

jaredbelch wrote:
I brought up a similar thread about SL County having illegal ordinances on the books. I'm in the process of preparing remarks to go to the county council meeting and ask that it be removed...

I am moving to SLC from Sandy this month, I will go to a council meeting and bring this up.
 

jaredbelch

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2007
Messages
545
Location
Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
imported post

ScottyT wrote:
jaredbelch wrote:
I brought up a similar thread about SL County having illegal ordinances on the books. I'm in the process of preparing remarks to go to the county council meeting and ask that it be removed...

I am moving to SLC from Sandy this month, I will go to a council meeting and bring this up.
And RapidDave is right, it falls under preemption. Even if they did have an exemption for permit holders, they aren't allowed to make rules or laws or ordinances relating to firearms.
 

scorpioajr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
1,387
Location
Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA
imported post

ScottyT wrote:
We really need to find a one-armed 18-20 year old to lead the charge to eliminate the whole "Utah Unloaded" thing altogether. He can't get a CFP, he can't quickly rack the slide, so should he be denied the right to self defense?
Following that logic - one could say that that one armed 18-20 is deemed unfit to handle a firearm. Not solely to the fact that he can't operate it properly, but what about maintaining that weapon, Loading the magazines, loading the mags into the gun, being able to lock it in truck or even thusly having the ablility to OC/CC in his car at all. Drive + defending himself at some point? how? no. i think this man is a perfect candidate for a bodyguard.

Are enlisted men discriminated against for having bad eye sight? THEY aren't allowed to fly F-16s... NOT b/c they don't have the RIGHT, but b/c they are deemed unfit to operate.
 

xRapidDavex

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
431
Location
, ,
imported post

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
Following that logic - one could say that that one armed 18-20 is deemed unfit to handle a firearm. Not solely to the fact that he can't operate it properly, but what about maintaining that weapon, Loading the magazines, loading the mags into the gun, ....
Good point, I never thought about that. Hopefully 17 rounds will be enough.
 

scorpioajr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
1,387
Location
Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA
imported post

xRapidDavex wrote:
ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
Following that logic - one could say that that one armed 18-20 is deemed unfit to handle a firearm. Not solely to the fact that he can't operate it properly, but what about maintaining that weapon, Loading the magazines, loading the mags into the gun, ....
Good point, I never thought about that. Hopefully 17 rounds will be enough.
Lol - ya. Just playing both sides of the logic-fence. I understand what your saying though in the previous post.
 

Kevin Jensen

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

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
ScottyT wrote:
We really need to find a one-armed 18-20 year old to lead the charge to eliminate the whole "Utah Unloaded" thing altogether. He can't get a CFP, he can't quickly rack the slide, so should he be denied the right to self defense? He needs a double action revolver!
Following that logic - one could say that that one armed 18-20 is deemed unfit to handle a firearm. Not solely to the fact that he can't operate it properly, but what about maintaining that weapon, Loading the magazines, loading the mags into the gun, being able to lock it in truck or even thusly having the ablility to OC/CC in his car at all. Drive + defending himself at some point? how? no. i think this man is a perfect candidate for a bodyguard.

Are enlisted men discriminated against for having bad eye sight? THEY aren't allowed to fly F-16s... NOT b/c they don't have the RIGHT, but b/c they are deemed unfit to operate.


The argument has been made before that the blind should not be excluded from receiving a concealed firearm permit.

Remember ...shall not be infringed!
 

scorpioajr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
1,387
Location
Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA
imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:
ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
ScottyT wrote:
We really need to find a one-armed 18-20 year old to lead the charge to eliminate the whole "Utah Unloaded" thing altogether. He can't get a CFP, he can't quickly rack the slide, so should he be denied the right to self defense? He needs a double action revolver!
Following that logic - one could say that that one armed 18-20 is deemed unfit to handle a firearm. Not solely to the fact that he can't operate it properly, but what about maintaining that weapon, Loading the magazines, loading the mags into the gun, being able to lock it in truck or even thusly having the ablility to OC/CC in his car at all. Drive + defending himself at some point? how? no. i think this man is a perfect candidate for a bodyguard.

Are enlisted men discriminated against for having bad eye sight? THEY aren't allowed to fly F-16s... NOT b/c they don't have the RIGHT, but b/c they are deemed unfit to operate.


The argument has been made before that the blind should not be excluded from receiving a concealed firearm permit.

Remember ...shall not be infringed!
Can't argue with that.
 

Bflamante

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
119
Location
Bountiful, Utah, USA
imported post

With training one armed operators should be quite capable.

Let us know if there is going to be a group showing at the city counsel meeting.:celebrate
 
Top