Lawmaker aims to do away with concealed carry permits

October 8th, 2010 @ 10:02pm
By Sarah Dallof
SALT LAKE CITY -- "A Utah lawmaker wants to do away with the requirement to have a permit to legally carry a concealed weapon. While the legislation to change the law is yet to be written, it's already the center of a controversy. "

"You don't take a course and pay a fee to exercise your freedom of religion," Sandstrom says. "This is a guaranteed right."

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=12752557

Criminals, dont take safety courses, they dont go to ranges and practice shooting, but yet they dont have to many accidental shooting in public. I've only heard of criminal shootings that were premeditated. So why do they think that the average law abiding citizen would be more dangerous without a permit than with. New Mexico, and Nevada stopped excepting the Utah permit because they dont take a safety course. I wonder how their statistics on gun safety is compared to states like Alaska, Arizona, and Virginia who do not require any permit to carry open or concealed.

In my opinion, I am more afraid of the weapon I can not see, I dont fear any open carry weapons, and dont understand why others do. If someone reaches for their open carry weapon, you know it. You dont know squat when they reach for a concealed, you wont know till you see it. By then they already are a step ahead of you.

Sounds like the wave of "Constitutional Carry" like recently passed in Arizona is moving along. With the 2A now being incorporated to the States, it might even get more traction.


In some ways I'd like to see more laws like Kennesaw, GA's "required gun ownership".

Here's a study of it's effects after 25 years in effect:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196

"You don't take a course and pay a fee to exercise your freedom of religion," Sandstrom says. "This is a guaranteed right."

Bingo.

amlevin said:

In some ways I'd like to see more laws like Kennesaw, GA's "required gun ownership".

Here's a study of it's effects after 25 years in effect:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196

Click to expand...

For once, I've got to disagree with you, amlevin. I don't want the government requiring me to buy (health insurance, guns) or do anything. I have health insurance because it is the smart thing to do. Same with my guns. Keep the effin government out of my life.

Ajetpilot said:

For once, I've got to disagree with you, amlevin. I don't want the government requiring me to buy (health insurance, guns) or do anything. I have health insurance because it is the smart thing to do. Same with my guns. Keep the effin government out of my life.

Click to expand...

We actually agree more than you think on this. It is interesting though that that Kennesaw's population has grown and yet no murders. Compare that with Morton Grove which went the other way with a ban. Their crime rate increased over 15% and their population went down.

My "desire" was merely some musing over a law that worked versus those that are miserable failures.

ajetpilot said:

for once, i've got to disagree with you, amlevin. I don't want the government requiring me to buy (health insurance, guns) or do anything. I have health insurance because it is the smart thing to do. Same with my guns. Keep the effin government out of my life.

Click to expand...

yes sir!!!

Ajetpilot said:

For once, I've got to disagree with you, amlevin. I don't want the government requiring me to buy (health insurance, guns) or do anything. I have health insurance because it is the smart thing to do. Same with my guns. Keep the effin government out of my life.

Click to expand...

Instead of the government requiring you to buy a gun, It should just be mandatory that you are required to own a govenment issue rifle and know how to use it, like in Switzerland.

How many other guns you own should be up to you, and only your business.

amzbrady said:

Instead of the government requiring you to buy a gun, It should just be mandatory that you are required to own a govenment issue rifle and know how to use it, like in Switzerland.

How many other guns you own should be up to you, and only your business.

Click to expand...

I can't argue with that!

It is funny how some people have such a dim scope of reality. Concealed carry permits only detour good people from carrying and in some respect ensure that the bad guys are the only ones in the room with a gun in their pocket. In turn giving them all the power to destroy peoples lives.

I love laws that work for the greater good... go team

Now show me a law about 2A that makes any sence. I have trouble using 'govt' and 'sence' in the same sentence! :banana: Nov. 2 is coming!

Well, what if UT did eliminate their CPL? Consider all those states then that one could NOT legally carry CC or OC in because those states don't accept our CPL and the UT one is no longer available. Personally I don't understand what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED the city, county, state and federal governments don't get. There should be no laws on the books for firearms, there should be no BATFE, there should be no 1968 GCA, no CPLs, no bans, no prohibitions and no griping from the weenies that don't want to protect themselves.

The Utah permit would still be available, so that you could travel and carry. AZ still has a permit but you just don't need one while in the state.

Kentucky is also discussing whether to do away with its license.....

M1Gunr said:

The Utah permit would still be available, so that you could travel and carry. AZ still has a permit but you just don't need one while in the state.

Kentucky is also discussing whether to do away with its license.....

Click to expand...

AZ does the permit thing still because you can't carry inside a restaurant w/a bar inside (aka Applebees, etc) without a permit. And to allow its citizens to gain reciprocity in other states. The 'constitutional carry' we so often dream about isn't totally perfect in AZ, at least not yet. I agree its a step in the right direction, there are just too many details still left in the mix.