UT HB78

imported post

Mitch Vilos will be on the Doug Wright Show in a few minutes, talking about this bill, on KSL 102.7 FM or 1160 AM.

imported post

I know i am the tin-foil hat guy of this group, but:

I get worried as to why this law is being passed. Since it is already legal to OC for non-permit holders and permit holders alike. My feeling is that the plans behind this law are far more sinister than face value.

So they make a huge deal about this law, and if it passes - the media will alert every tom, dick and harry that they can legally carry their guns on their hips. That's all good enough.
But what if the idea behind it is to get a great percentage of irresponsible gun owners and now, carriers to do so? The ADs, NDs etc will start to pile up and some Police Chief will yell, "SEE! This is why us LEOs had such a problem with this in the first place, but NOOOOOO, ya'll didn't want to listen to us." BAM outlawed. Just like that.

All because the gang bangers and idiots out there didn't KNOW before; that they could carry their gun. They didn't know before BECAUSE they are idiots and irresponsible gun owners.
You and me, SEEK OUT the laws that govern us and then proceed accordingly after much thought, research, training and challenges.

Am i reading too much into this?

imported post

Following your logic protected, we are doing ourselves a disservice by educating people about the legality of OC.

I think you are reading too much into this, though I see no need for this particular section of the law.

As others have asked, since when does the legislature tell us what we can do?

imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:

Mitch Vilos will be on the Doug Wright Show in a few minutes, talking about this bill, on KSL 102.7 FM or 1160 AM.

Click to expand...

http://pandora.bonnint.net/audio/2010_01_19_doug1.mp3
http://pandora.bonnint.net/audio/2010_01_19_doug2.mp3
http://pandora.bonnint.net/audio/2010_01_19_doug3.mp3

imported post

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

I get worried as to why this law is being passed. Since it is already legal to OC for non-permit holders and permit holders alike. My feeling is that the plans behind this law are far more sinister than face value.

Click to expand...

Nah. Talk to some of the folks here (like utahbagpiper) who know the legislators who proposed and are pushing this legislation. They're good folks, and sincerely pro-carry. No hidden agendas.

imported post

thx997303 wrote:

As others have asked, since when does the legislature tell us what we can do?

Click to expand...

Hey, thx: On the Doug Wright show, Mitch Vilos talkes about a young man he helped who was arrested for OC just a few weeks prior to leaving Utah for military service. Was that you?

imported post

swillden wrote:

thx997303 wrote:

As others have asked, since when does the legislature tell us what we can do?

Click to expand...

Hey, thx: On the Doug Wright show, Mitch Vilos talkes about a young man he helped who was arrested for OC just a few weeks prior to leaving Utah for military service. Was that you?

Click to expand...

I believe it was. About one third into the second hour of the show.

imported post

I amcompletelyanewby to open carry, but my question is...I now realize that open carry is basically legit in Utah, but what is the law about a loaded weapon? Does that mean no loaded chamber or no ammo in the mag and chamber? If so, can you have ammo on your person, just not in the gun? Please explain.

imported post

[font="Arial,Helvetica"]The ammo does not need to be seperate from the gun. If you have a semi-auto pistol, the mag may be full. But if you don't have a permit, it is a good idea to leave the chamber empty, because of the line in red below. If you have a permit from any state, this will not apply to you.


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.


[/font][font="Arial,Helvetica"]
76-10-505. Carrying loaded firearm in vehicle or on street.
(1) Unless otherwise authorized by law, a person may not carry a loaded firearm:
(a) in or on a vehicle, unless:
(i) the vehicle is in the person's lawful possession; or
(ii) the person is carrying the loaded firearm in a vehicle with the consent of the person lawfully in possession of the vehicle;
(b) on a public street; or
(c) in a posted prohibited area.
(2) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply to a minor under 18 years of age, since a minor under 18 years of age may not carry a loaded firearm in or on a vehicle.
(3) Notwithstanding Subsection (1)(a)(i) and (ii), a person may not possess a loaded rifle, shotgun, or muzzle-loading rifle in a vehicle.
(4) A violation of this section is a class B misdemeanor. [/font]

imported post

Unfortunately, 'some' Law Enforcement Officers, especially now-a-days, do not know The Law they are supposed to be Enforceing.

This will definately help clarify the Law in Utah, especially to everyone who, for some unknown reason or another, does not understand Utah Law that: 1. A Person may Open Carry a Firearm without a Permit, as long as 2. It [The Firearm] is atleast two actions away from firing, and 3. While in Public.

imported post

swillden wrote:

Nah. Talk to some of the folks here (like utahbagpiper) who know the legislators who proposed and are pushing this legislation. They're good folks, and sincerely pro-carry. No hidden agendas.

Click to expand...

Agreed completely. Those sponsoring and supporting this legislation have good intentions. And while that doesn't guarantee that the bill won't need to be tweaked along the way, it does mean they are aiming for the right thing.

I might have approached this a bit differently myself. I like the idea of simply making clear that a permit to carry does not require you to conceal. But this is straightforward and to the point.

As to the issue of the legislature not telling us what we can do, we get that more than we think about. Consider 76-10-500 that we often think of as our State preemption code. It ALSO affirmatively declares that we do NOT have to have a permit or license to buy or own a gun, nor to transport a gun, etc.

76-10-505 that bans carrying a loaded gun in public, then provides an exception if you are carrying a loaded gun in a car you own or with the permission of the owner.

76-10-511 explicitly allows non-prohibited persons from having a gun at their home or temporary camp.

76-10-524 explicitly authorizes purchase of guns out of State in compliance with federal law.

In the motor vehicle code we have explicit permission to operate a OHV on public roads in certain cases. Other cases can be found in the FCC regulations and building codes.

Bottom line is that while in pure theory laws would only tell us what is prohibited and everything else would be allowed, in practice it is sometimes necessary--other times a good idea--to also spell out what is allowed. If nothing else, this prevents anyone from applying too broad of an interpretation to what is prohibited.

Arguing that we can OC because it is not banned is fine. But it obviously has some challenges at times. An explicit provision allowing OC (not to mention making clear that if a person is justified in pulling a gun he is justified in threatening to pull it or pulling it but not actually firing it) has some real benefits.

Charles

imported post

That does clear it up. One guy told me that OC is legal, but you couldn't have ANY ammo. Really what would be the point other than to intimidate or for show? Thanks for your reply.

imported post

Hi-Point's without ammunition make great hammers! Welcome to OCDO! :monkey

imported post

swillden wrote:

thx997303 wrote:

As others have asked, since when does the legislature tell us what we can do?

Click to expand...

Hey, thx: On the Doug Wright show, Mitch Vilos talkes about a young man he helped who was arrested for OC just a few weeks prior to leaving Utah for military service. Was that you?

Click to expand...

Why yes, I believe it was.

Let's see, age at the time, check.

Cowboy hat, check.

Six shooter, check.

Prominent retailer, check.

Yep, that was me.

imported post

thx997303 wrote:

swillden wrote:

thx997303 wrote:

As others have asked, since when does the legislature tell us what we can do?

Click to expand...

Hey, thx: On the Doug Wright show, Mitch Vilos talkes about a young man he helped who was arrested for OC just a few weeks prior to leaving Utah for military service. Was that you?

Click to expand...

Why yes, I believe it was.

Click to expand...

I thought so.

You LIVED the reason why it's a good idea for the legislature to tell us that we can do this, even though we can already. Imagine how your incident would have gone down if you'd been able to point to a statute that said "Open carry is legal". You probably could have gotten the cop's supervisor to look it up while you were standing there, and even if you did get arrested, you probably wouldn't have needed to hire Mitch.

The purpose of this part of this bill isn't to change the law, it's just to make what the law already allows so obvious that no one can honestly ignore it.

imported post

I can see your point, but is it the message that we want sent to our legislatures?

I can definitely see the good in this bill, but I have a bit of an issue with it.

I do believe however, that with our current political climate and the years of bad laws that must be overcome, that this particular bill could be a very powerful tool.

That said, I do believe I will lend my support to this bill. However insignificant that support may be.

imported post

thx997303 wrote:

I can see your point, but is it the message that we want sent to our legislatures?

Click to expand...

I think the only message being sent is that we want our legal code to be clear and easy to understand, and it's okay to have a little redundancy if it improves clarity.

imported post

SGT Jensen wrote:

While I can certainly appreciate Rep. Sandstrom's work, I think I have to agree with Sam. This, to me, sounds unnecessary and might even confuse things further if it passes as written.

First of my concerns is...

(1) An individual who is not prohibited from doing so by federal or Utah state law may:
(a) openly carry a firearm;

There is nothing in this language that states permit holders may carry openly. I know it is implied, but there will be officers and institutions holding fast to the belief that a permit requires concealment.

Second concern. When did the legislature start telling us what we can do? :? This law will lead some to believe that we did not have this right before the legislature decided it so. I believe laws like these lead us on a slippery slope of permissiveness.

Third concern. If passed as written, how difficult would it be for someone to add the word NOT after may, while doing some "concealed firearm law housekeeping"? Even the modifications being made in HB0214 are troubling to me.

I know it's a long shot, but I believe the best way to handle our firearm law woes would be to repeal 76-10-504, and adopt an Alaska style carry. I know that is not likely to happen any time soon, but a guy can dream, right?

(ETA... I will still never understand the text formatting of WowBB. :X )

Click to expand...

To support this bill is I think may be bad, It brings us closer to the conclusion that we need permission.It may appear to some as a good idea but perhapsit isn't.Two things I'd like to see passed in Utah or Alaska carry, a volunteer permit for recognition out of state and no permit required to conceal or OC in Utah, and the removal oflegislation that allows churches to ban carry in church. Yes i support property rights but not at the expense of protecting life when private property is open to the general public. I find it disappointing that my church (LDS) has as policy banned carry in church in Utah as a matter of policy rather than Divine guidance or revelation, that's it contrast to what is in the Book Of Mormon with Captain Moroni stating the right of the people to defend themselves, their freedom and religion from oppression even unto bloodshed or in D&C 134:11 I think it is. I know not everyone in Utah or in this utah forumare LDS but probably nearly half of you are and understand what i said.

imported post

NewZealandAmerican wrote:

To support this bill is I think may be bad, It brings us closer to the conclusion that we need permission.

Click to expand...

I don't think it does that at all. Everyone who understands the current law understands that this is merely a clarification. To those who don't understand the law, well, now it'll be easier for them.

NewZealandAmerican wrote:

Two things I'd like to see passed in Utah or Alaska carry, a volunteer permit for recognition out of state and no permit required to conceal or OC in Utah, and the removal oflegislation that allows churches to ban carry in church.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see those things as well, but politics is the art of the possible.

We might (might) be able to get Alaska carry pushed through. Arizona is currently working on a "Constitutional Carry" law (essentially, Alaska carry), and if they can pass theirs, it'll make it easier for us to do it as well.

On church carry -- don't even think about going there. That law is what it is because the LDS church wanted it. Actually, they wanted something a lot stiffer, and compromised to accept what we have. You start fighting that battle and the church will weigh in against you, and you'll lose. The LDS church generally stays clear of politics, but when it chooses to get involved it has tremendous political power in Utah.

As a practical matter, I'd bet that there are relatively few LDS church services in the state in which there aren't at least one or two concealed firearms present. Because the crime is such a minor one (not even a misdemeanor) and because the church has chosen to treat this as a policy issue, not a doctrinal issue, many good members choose to regard it as a reason for deep concealment, rather than not carrying. There are even a few bishops who've given permission (which I believe the Handbook authorizes them to do).

Personally, I choose to obey the law and the policy and leave my gun in the car, unless I feel prompted to carry. I have considered asking my bishop for permission to carry, though. It's not clear if having permission could prevent me from being cited, or allow me to beat the citation, but it would remove the "policy" question. And it's not like anyone in my ward is going to call the police on me anyway.

imported post

Only 2 days into the session, and this bill is already dead and substituted.

http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/hbillint/hb0078s01.htm

Utah Legislature: Committee tones down controversial gun bill