But just to set the record straight, we have worked hard to make sure the Utah permit is NOT a cash cow for the State. Our goal has been to have it be revenue neutral. And near as we can tell, it is unless you consider providing two jobs at BCI for people to process non-resident permits to be a major source of income for the State.
My point on income does not necessarily have to do with income to the general funds but could also apply to the viability of the licensing system and/or the future costs of the license. I recall reading somewhere that there is a bill in Utah to adjust the prices of the licensing, the initial issue fees will go down but renewal fees will go up. I suspect this bill has to do with the changing costs of operation. If this proposal to require a resident permit before one can apply for a non-resident Utah permit then the cost structure will change again. This will make Utah BCI have to verify the resident permit, adding cost, and discourage some non-resident applicants, reducing income.
You're certainly welcome. Oh, did you forget to say "thank you" to Utah residents, legislators, and pro-RKBA activists who worked hard for many years to make sure that our permit was reasonable to obtain, available to non-residents, AND widely recognized? Now you're going to tell me that having benefited from the Utah permit you never did a thing to help us maintain it, or its recognition.
If I'm going to thank anyone then there is plenty of thanks that need to go around. I could thank Minnesota for recognizing the Utah permit too. I could also turn that around and express derision to Minnesota for not recognizing the Iowa permit and to Utah for requiring fingerprints and charging so much money. With that in mind I am pretty much neutral on the deal. Utah can keep the permit relevant for me if they like, or not, then I can choose to get the permit, or not.
I did help in keeping the Utah permit relevant, I applied for a permit. That is about all I can do from 1000 miles away. I have also expressed my concerns here which I thought some might appreciate being as I am a holder of the Utah permit. If the laws on non-resident Utah permits change then I can voice my opinion again when it comes time for renewal. Money talks you know.
Well, I'm glad it was of benefit to you when you needed it.
We are not trying to make sure it remains of value to those who continue to want/need it by maintain recognition.
Yes, the Utah permit has benefitted me. If the law changes then the permit does not seem so beneficial. Since I am part of the market that Utah wishes to reach then it might be to their benefit to listen to my concerns.
Quote the contrary. We calculate that by changing our law, we more easily maintain recognition of the Utah permit. That is certainly good for Utah residents. It is also good for many non-Utah-residents who want/need a widely recognized permit. That some (such as yourself) no longer see the Utah permit as needful has infinitely more to do with the improved recognition of your home State permit (and seriously, congrats on that, THAT is the way we should be headed on our way to nationwide constitutional carry) than with the fact that the Utah permit would now require you to send one photo copy in with your application or renewal.
How does making the requirement of a resident permit for a non-resident applicant keep the Utah permit relevant? The reason that legislators and trainers in Texas are complaining is because the Utah permit is cheaper than the Texas one and both are recognized in Texas. If Utah decides to require Texan applicants to first get a Texas permit then the Utah permit becomes nearly irrelevant. Few Texans would bother with the Utah permit because it offers little privileges to Texans. I checked the USA Carry reciprocity maps and there are only two states that are added by getting a Utah permit for a Texan that already has a Texas resident permit. Those two states could also be obtained by getting an Arizona or Florida permit and so now Utah would be competing with those states' permits.
Your calculus came to the conclusion that changing the law is beneficial. My calculus came to the opposite conclusion. I have to wonder what Texas would really do about it. If Texas was to change their law to drop recognition of Utah permits then I suspect a lot of Texans would be upset, as would a lot of Utahans. Since Texas legislators do not wish to upset their voters I doubt Texas is going to do anything about it. That is precisely why Texan legislators are trying to get Utah law to change, that way they don't have to be the bad guy in this.
My point is, don't fall for the pressure from outside the state. I think any threat of dropping the Utah permit recognition in any state is an empty one. Even if they do drop recognition because Utah does not fall for their demands they could just as easily find another excuse to drop recognition. It would become much easier to do since few Texans would complain after that.
In other words, you have little need for the Utah permit now. So ANY tiny increase in the cost or hassle of getting it means you won't renew. But for many, the value of maintain widespread recognition of the permit more than offsets the need to obtain a home State permit. And many who really value the Utah permit won't even be required to get a home State permit first under this change.
I didn't say ANY increase in the cost or hassle would mean I won't renew, it's just that requiring a copy of my Iowa permit is going too far. I mentioned the potential increase in the renewal fees before. An increase from $10 to $15 in renewal fees is not going to break me. Knowing whether or not I have a permit from my own state is just plain none of their business.
Another thing that bothers me is the unequal application of the law. As an Iowa resident I'd have to provide a copy of my permit, my cousin in Illinois would not have to produce such a document. Why should my permit cost $50 more (in fees paid in Iowa) than my cousin's in Illinois? Why should my cousin be exempt from the background check and training when I am not? We both gain the same benefits from the permit only I have to pay more and am further inconvenienced. That increased cost and inconvenience might just mean I go shopping for a different permit.
Let's just be clear and accurate with our information, shall we?
Sure. I'm full of question on this proposal and I would certainly like to see how this plays out.
I have all kinds of questions. Would my Utah permit remain valid if my Iowa permit expires? Would I be required to produce my Utah and Iowa permit in every state that recognizes the Utah permit? Would that only hold true in Utah? Or Texas?
Would this law pass a court challenge under state or federal equal protection laws? How would Utah determine the difference between "may issue" permit laws and "shall issue" permit laws? For example, (IIRC) Alabama has a "may issue" law but court challenges mean that no sheriff will dare deny a permit to someone that is not a prohibited person. In law the permits are "may issue" but in practice it is "shall issue".
The only things I see benefitting from the proposed law change are the bottom lines on the Texas firearm trainer balance sheets and the coffers of the state of Texas.
Utah might change their law in hopes to appease the Texans but that does not mean that Texas won't come back later to change their law to drop the recognition of the Utah permit anyway. Utah has leverage now precisely because Texas recognizes their permit. If Texans want to see more Texans getting permits from Texas then they need to change their laws. Should Utah require that Texans get a Texas permit to get a Utah permit then you stand to lose a lot of Texans to help in your fight as the Utah permit will become redundant for many of them.
You can also stand to lose a lot of other state residents if the law changes. Utah would now be competing with a dozen other states for permits, only one of which I know requires a resident permit before they will issue a non-resident permit. Pennsylvania requires a resident permit to get theirs but it's much cheaper, requires no fingerprints or photo, and is available by mail.
