Bill In Utah Legislature To Restrict Permits. You Will Have To Have A VA Permit

2a4all · Feb 2, 2011

TFred said:
So in fact, Utah is joining Virginia in completely turning their back on victims of domestic violence or anyone else who has a need to keep their personal information such as home address, from the eyes of criminals.

Nice.

Will this affect renewals, and if so, can the permit be renewed early before this new requirement goes into effect?

TFred

So someone who wants to find you goes to the (Va Circuit Court) Clerk's office and inquires if you have a CHP. If the clerk indicates that you have such a permit, and given that you've taken the time, trouble and expense to acquire same, that should/would serve as a warning flag to anyone wanting to do you harm that they should tread lightly, I would think. You have taken responsibility for your own personal safety, it's a matter of public record, and you're not dependent on the (sometimes iffy) CHP reciprocity agreements with any other state. This (should) also put the inquirer on notice that they may have used official court records to further possible criminal activity. If the inquiry results are null (no CHP), it only means that that court doesn't have a record.

utbagpiper · Feb 2, 2011

TFred said:
If it's a case of lost revenue for those neighboring states, then why don't they just apply this new restriction to the residents of those states?

Seems simple enough to say "this section applies only to the residents of Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Texas, etc.

Fix the actual problem, and don't create new problems where they do not currently exist.

TFred

The problem exists in many States. And we struggle with the same legislative realities as does activists in any other State. There is the ideal, and there is the possible.

I might just ask why Virginia residents do not just fix your privacy concerns. Or maybe take some modest measures to dramatically increase recognition of the Virginia permit.

I don't mean to be hostile or flippant with your concerns. I really don't.

And I'm sincerely sorry that this change will negatively impact you.

But Utah and our Utah activists have gone above and beyond to assist non-Utah-residents with RKBA. Utah recognizes all permits issued nationwide. A permit in Utah is good in more locations than just about any other State in union. We have issued and defended issuing permits to non-residents on exactly the same basis we issue to residents. We're working on constitutional carry for Utah.

At the end of the day, we do need to preserve as best we can without imposing draconian requirements, and especially not imposing draconian requirements on our residents, the widespread recognition of our permit. And frankly, those persons who are getting a Utah permit to circumvent getting a home State permit are a big part of why we are facing loss of recognition.

I'm sorry.

Charles

Vanns40 · Feb 2, 2011

2a4all said:
So someone who wants to find you goes to the (Va Circuit Court) Clerk's office and inquires if you have a CHP. If the clerk indicates that you have such a permit, and given that you've taken the time, trouble and expense to acquire same, that should/would serve as a warning flag to anyone wanting to do you harm that they should tread lightly, I would think. You have taken responsibility for your own personal safety, it's a matter of public record, and you're not dependent on the (sometimes iffy) CHP reciprocity agreements with any other state. This (should) also put the inquirer on notice that they may have used official court records to further possible criminal activity. If the inquiry results are null (no CHP), it only means that that court doesn't have a record.

The problem with CHP records being open to the public is, most gun owners own more than one firearm. You don't stay at home all the time. You leave home, your home is broken into, your guns are stolen.

Women, who have been abused and change addresses and then obtain a permit can be found by their abuser when their names are published in the papers. One such case happened a couple of years ago. This woman had to move for the FIFTH time. No one should go through that.

I'm one of the instructors who has been decried for suggesting that folks obtain a Utah permit because of privacy considerations. I admit it proudly. I refuse to see another victim because our Virginia Legislature doesn't have the spine to stand up to the newspaper & media lobby. That includes Democrats & Republicans.

The fact is that NO ONE has the RIGHT, IMO, to know that you have a permit. What business is it of the local newspaper?

A few years ago, Chris Core, formerly of WMAL radio famously said, on the air, "it's public record, why would your care?". I took him at his word and did a little research on Mr. Core. I put HIS address on a well known 2A forum along with his mortgage information, phone number and a whole host of information regarding his house, that was public record. He went on the air the next day and said, "I get it, please, whom ever is doing this, stop". I then contacted him, told him it was me. We had a discussion and guess what, he DIDN'T get it! His wife made him do it! He still thought gun owners lives should be open to public scrutiny but not his. What a hypocrite.

However, he never went near that topic again.

TFred · Feb 2, 2011

Vanns40 said:
The problem with CHP records being open to the public is, most gun owners own more than one firearm. You don't stay at home all the time. You leave home, your home is broken into, your guns are stolen.

Women, who have been abused and change addresses and then obtain a permit can be found by their abuser when their names are published in the papers. One such case happened a couple of years ago. This woman had to move for the FIFTH time. No one should go through that.

I refuse to see another victim because our Virginia Legislature doesn't have the spine to stand up to the newspaper & media lobby.

Exactly this.

I live in a townhouse subdivision, and I live by myself. It would be trivial for someone to learn my work schedule and know that they have 10 hours to break in, find my small safe and defeat it. (Unfortunately, I don't have one of those thousand-dollar monster safes bolted to the basement floor...) Or even worse, ambush me as I arrive home and force me to open the safe and then who knows what happens to me? Home invasions to steal guns have been documented in VA-ALERT postings. I'm not allowed to carry at work, and we can't even get a stinking parking-lot bill through the liberal side of our legislature, so they would know I come home unarmed!

And we do continue to try to fix this issue... this is the third year that I've been involved with the effort. When the Senate decides to break its own rules to kill bills that are nearly certain to pass, what can you do? Start working for new candidates in the Fall election.

It's a very long and slow process.

TFred

2a4all · Feb 2, 2011

Vanns40 said:
The problem with CHP records being open to the public is, most gun owners own more than one firearm. You don't stay at home all the time. You leave home, your home is broken into, your guns are stolen.

Women, who have been abused and change addresses and then obtain a permit can be found by their abuser when their names are published in the papers. One such case happened a couple of years ago. This woman had to move for the FIFTH time. No one should go through that.

Security for one's valuables is certainly a concern, but mass thefts of firearms due to revealed CHP information isn't really happening, is it?

So this woman has a CHP, and continues to evade her abuser? Why? If she moves after she gets her CHP, she doesn't need to change the address on it. Apparently, whoever is abusing her either doesn't believe she's armed, or is using some other leverage on her. I'm guessing the person who advised her to get a CHP isn't the same person who is advising her about this relationship.

TFred · Feb 2, 2011

2a4all said:
Security for one's valuables is certainly a concern, but mass thefts of firearms due to revealed CHP information isn't really happening, is it?

So why don't you put a sign up in your front yard that says: "There are firearms inside, and the house will be unoccupied at the following times..."? Information is either protected or public. There is no gray area.

2a4all said:
So this woman has a CHP, and continues to evade her abuser? Why? If she moves after she gets her CHP, she doesn't need to change the address on it. Apparently, whoever is abusing her either doesn't believe she's armed, or is using some other leverage on her. I'm guessing the person who advised her to get a CHP isn't the same person who is advising her about this relationship.

He was speaking in general, not about one specific woman.

The point is, there are plenty of valid reasons to keep one's CHP status, and certainly one's private information, out of the view of the nosybody neighbors and anti-gun press.

This is a no-brainer, but so far the anti-gun media is winning.

There is nothing they love more than to find a CHP in the file of someone who has gone nuts and committed a violent crime. It's their crack, and they are not willing to give it up.

TFred

njeske · Feb 2, 2011

dumb

I'm not really liking Utah bowing to the pressure from other states. Although this won't really affect me.

As I read this thread, it sounds like the big issue is people carrying in their home state with a Utah non-resident permit rather than getting a permit from their own state. Rather than states pulling reciprocity to prevent this practice, I think it would make more sense for them to pass a law similar to NV where state residents can only carry with a NV permit.

TFred · Feb 2, 2011

njeske said:
I'm not really liking Utah bowing to the pressure from other states. Although this won't really affect me.

As I read this thread, it sounds like the big issue is people carrying in their home state with a Utah non-resident permit rather than getting a permit from their own state. Rather than states pulling reciprocity to prevent this practice, I think it would make more sense for them to pass a law similar to NV where state residents can only carry with a NV permit.

As I drove home from work, this is exactly what came to my mind.

This is not a Utah problem, it's a problem for the states who happen to not like their residents using Utah permits to carry at home.

In fact, it's rather petty of these states to make a threat to Utah when it's their own problem to fix.

And I'll ask again, why can't Utah just specifically include those states that care in this new restriction?

TFred

JimMullinsWVCDL · Feb 2, 2011

TFred said:
And I'll ask again, why can't Utah just specifically include those states that care in this new restriction?

Because the ranks of "those states" will change over time. Yesterday it was Nevada & New Mexico. Tomorrow, Minnesota, Ohio, or even Virginia--all of which have discretionary reciprocity/recognition laws under which executive branch officials have the legal discretion to decide which states they will honor--might be the state du jour threatening to stop recognizing Utah permits.

I will reaffirm my prior statement: officials in Utah do have a political, if not moral, obligation to their constituents to preserve Utah's extensive reciprocity with other states, and I believe SB 36 is about the best way to do so.

TFred · Feb 2, 2011

WVCDL said:
Because the ranks of "those states" will change over time. Yesterday it was Nevada & New Mexico. Tomorrow, Minnesota, Ohio, or even Virginia--all of which have discretionary reciprocity/recognition laws under which executive branch officials have the legal discretion to decide which states they will honor--might be the state du jour threatening to stop recognizing Utah permits.

I will reaffirm my prior statement: officials in Utah do have a political, if not moral, obligation to their constituents to preserve Utah's extensive reciprocity with other states, and I believe SB 36 is about the best way to do so.

This is nothing more than coercion, political blackmail. If a state doesn't want its residents carrying on an out of state permit, then they should change their own law. This cowardly action by these other states effectively allows their government to bypass the legislative process, and the will of the people.

At the very least, Utah could codify a procedure similar to reciprocity for other states to ask them not to issue to their residents unless they have an in-state permit.

But as ridiculous as that idea sounds, it only serves to amplify how ridiculous it is for this to be a Utah issue at all.

Imagine the outrage if this same sort of thing were to happen with Drivers Licenses!

TFred

utbagpiper · Feb 2, 2011

TFred said:
This is nothing more than coercion, political blackmail. If a state doesn't want its residents carrying on an out of state permit, then they should change their own law. This cowardly action by these other states effectively allows their government to bypass the legislative process, and the will of the people.

At the very least, Utah could codify a procedure similar to reciprocity for other states to ask them not to issue to their residents unless they have an in-state permit.

But as ridiculous as that idea sounds, it only serves to amplify how ridiculous it is for this to be a Utah issue at all.

Imagine the outrage if this same sort of thing were to happen with Drivers Licenses!

TFred

I agree and sympathize with your opinions here, TFred. I share them.

But at the end of the day, I have zero ability to effect legal changes in any State but Utah.

Even in Utah my ability to effect change is limited. We have made small, steady progress each year for the last 15 or so years.

I'm sorry this change so adversely affects you personally. I'm sorry there is not a better solution available to me or to the Utah legislature.

But as WVCDL has so eloquently put it, at the end of the day the political and moral obligations of Utah legislators and Utah RKBA activists to do what is best for Utah residents first. Protecting recognition of the Utah permit is important to Utah residents. It is probably even more important for most non-Utah-residents. If tomorrow it is Virginia hopping on the bandwagon to drop recognition of the Utah permit the fact that you can so easily get a Utah permit will be of little or no value to you. Maybe you think that won't happen. But the economy is down, People are spending less. And sooner or later a few Virginia permit instructors might notice a growing number of Virginia residents NOT getting a Virginia permit because a Utah permit is cheaper to get, or maintains privacy, or is more widely recognized or whatever the reason is, the instructors figure they are losing money. They point out to a few legislators or bureaucrats that the Commonwealth is also losing money from fewer Virginia permit fees, and next thing you know, someone finds a reason to start disliking the Utah permit. Whether they are honest about the reason as Texas has been, or find some other excuse matters very little.

Gun grabbing legislators and bureaucrats love to limit recognition. How many pro-gun officials does it take to start thinking about dropping recognition before it is going to be dropped?

Direct your passion and angst not at Utah for doing what is in our power to try to preserve recognition. Instead direct it toward Virginia for not protecting your privacy.

All the best.

Charles

Deepdiver36 · Feb 2, 2011

utbagpiper said:
i agree and sympathize with your opinions here, tfred. I share them.

But at the end of the day, i have zero ability to effect legal changes in any state but utah.

Even in utah my ability to effect change is limited. We have made small, steady progress each year for the last 15 or so years.

I'm sorry this change so adversely affects you personally. I'm sorry there is not a better solution available to me or to the utah legislature.

But as wvcdl has so eloquently put it, at the end of the day the political and moral obligations of utah legislators and utah rkba activists to do what is best for utah residents first. Protecting recognition of the utah permit is important to utah residents. It is probably even more important for most non-utah-residents. If tomorrow it is virginia hopping on the bandwagon to drop recognition of the utah permit the fact that you can so easily get a utah permit will be of little or no value to you. Maybe you think that won't happen. But the economy is down, people are spending less. And sooner or later a few virginia permit instructors might notice a growing number of virginia residents not getting a virginia permit because a utah permit is cheaper to get, or maintains privacy, or is more widely recognized or whatever the reason is, the instructors figure they are losing money. They point out to a few legislators or bureaucrats that the commonwealth is also losing money from fewer virginia permit fees, and next thing you know, someone finds a reason to start disliking the utah permit. Whether they are honest about the reason as texas has been, or find some other excuse matters very little.

Gun grabbing legislators and bureaucrats love to limit recognition. How many pro-gun officials does it take to start thinking about dropping recognition before it is going to be dropped?

Direct your passion and angst not at utah for doing what is in our power to try to preserve recognition. Instead direct it toward virginia for not protecting your privacy.

All the best.

Charles

Amen!

2a4all · Feb 3, 2011

TFred said:
So why don't you put a sign up in your front yard that says: "There are firearms inside, and the house will be unoccupied at the following times..."? Information is either protected or public. There is no gray area.

He was speaking in general, not about one specific woman.

The point is, there are plenty of valid reasons to keep one's CHP status, and certainly one's private information, out of the view of the nosybody neighbors and anti-gun press.

This is a no-brainer, but so far the anti-gun media is winning.

There is nothing they love more than to find a CHP in the file of someone who has gone nuts and committed a violent crime. It's their crack, and they are not willing to give it up.

TFred

In the 1st place, we have a responsibility to protect/safeguard our own property, which is why neither of us puts up such a sign. While I would prefer that CHP information be limited to "need to know", to suggest that the current availability of said info is the equivalent of explicit, seen by the casual observer signage is ludicrous.

In the 2nd place, Vanns40 did mention "One such case happened a couple of years ago. This woman had to move for the FIFTH time. No one should go through that."

I agree with utbagpiper. The fixes to these issues for Virginians need to be made in Richmond. Be careful what you wish for, though. Why would any state that has reciprocity with Virginia issue a non-resident permit to a Virginia resident?

TFred · Feb 3, 2011

2a4all said:
Why would any state that has reciprocity with Virginia issue a non-resident permit to a Virginia resident?

I can't think of any reason why a state wouldn't issue a permit to a Virginia resident that was otherwise qualified to have it.

TFred

2a4all · Feb 3, 2011

TFred said:
I can't think of any reason why a state wouldn't issue a permit to a Virginia resident that was otherwise qualified to have it.

TFred

From the applicant's perspective, how badly do I want my background check information to be collected and stored in yet another location?

TFred · Feb 3, 2011

2a4all said:
From the applicant's perspective, how badly do I want my background check information to be collected and stored in yet another location?

Well, in my case, I want my application to be stored in a location where the government understands what private information is, and that it is important to keep it private.

Utah does. Virginia does not.

TFred

utbagpiper · Feb 3, 2011

TFred said:
I can't think of any reason why a state wouldn't issue a permit to a Virginia resident that was otherwise qualified to have it.

TFred

I believe States should issue permits to anyone qualified to get them. Given the technical requirements of the federal gun free school zone law one can make a fine case for why non-residents need a permit issued by whatever State they are visiting. But that is a subtlety missed by many. And I can tell you that here in Utah the antis (and even many generally pro-gun people with resident permits) often bring up the issue of why Utah should be in the business of issuing non-resident permits. They argue that since Utah accepts all permits nationwide, there is little reason to issue non-res permits except to circumvent the laws of other States.

it is a species argument. But it plays well in the media.

We are becoming a victim of our own success. As more people get Utah permits and more States recognize them, our permits are subject to more attacks.

More generally, what was an annoying quirk in Florida a couple of decades ago is now a nationwide problem for the gun haters. And widespread recognition of each others' permits just makes it that much worse. Attacks on permits, on recognition, on training, etc, will only increase. As Alaska and Arizona have made clear, the next logical step after shall issue permits is full on permit-free or constitutional carry. The antis shudder at the thought and are savvy enough to know that raising questions about and attacking permits today reduces the odds they even have the fight about permit free carry tomorrow.

Charles

TFred · Feb 3, 2011

utbagpiper said:
I believe States should issue permits to anyone qualified to get them. Given the technical requirements of the federal gun free school zone law one can make a fine case for why non-residents need a permit issued by whatever State they are visiting.

You would love to see my opinion on this...

Way past my nap-time here in the east, I'll try to dig it up sometime tomorrow. You'll get a chuckle, then just maybe a "hmm.... good point!"

TFred

TFred · Feb 3, 2011

utbagpiper said:
I believe States should issue permits to anyone qualified to get them. Given the technical requirements of the federal gun free school zone law one can make a fine case for why non-residents need a permit issued by whatever State they are visiting.

TFred said:
You would love to see my opinion on this...

Way past my nap-time here in the east, I'll try to dig it up sometime tomorrow. You'll get a chuckle, then just maybe a "hmm.... good point!"

Had a chance to look up my previous post on this...

Prerequisites: I'm fully aware of the ATF opinon on this. I'm sure the ATF strongly believes their opinion and would absolutely follow it should they ever choose to charge anyone with this particular crime. I also don't think the ATF will ever charge someone for the sole act of violating this law. Especially now post-Heller/McDonald, I'm quite sure they know they would lose, and therefore, will never use it alone. There are claims that no new cases involving the GFSZA have been brought to trial since the revamped version took effect in 1995. I don't know if that is true, but I would be interested in any information to confirm or refute that claim.

Here's the post in which I said:

TFred said:
On the GFSZA, there have been several threads, some even rather recently on this subject. It is easily one of the most vile and universally hated laws among law-abiding gun owners in the country, at least the ones who know about it and what it really means.

As the wiki article suggests, I strongly believe that the law makes it almost literally impossible for a "non-permitted" person to legally carry a gun in any urban or suburban area in the United States.

I also strongly disagree with the opinion of the BATF which states that the permit must be issued by the home state. A permit is a license, which is a non-tangible status of being, not a piece of paper or a card. If Virginia recognizes an out-of-state permit for me to carry concealed, then it is Virginia that is "licensing" me to carry concealed (in deference to Virginia's laws), based on the status granted by that other state. Who did the background check, and mailed me the piece of paper that documents this status of license is not relevant.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, and as previously posted, I would not go looking for the opportunity to test my opinion in court either.

Crazy? Maybe. Maybe not. I think Heller and McDonald forged the nails to the coffin of the GFSZA, but until the Feds try to use it on someone with no other crimes and deep legal pockets, the hammer stays in the drawer.

TFred

TFred · Feb 14, 2011

WVCDL said:
SB 36 provides that it applies to renewal applications beginning January 1, 2012. It is silent on new applications; thus I presume all new applicants would be subject to the bill's new requirements the moment it becomes law (but it should not affect applications submitted prior to and pending on that date).

From the updates at your link, it appears that the Utah House amended the bill to include an effective date of May 10, 2011.

I was checking updates in the slim hope that the House would act more sensibly, but it appears they are all drinking the Texas Koolaid.

TFred

Bill In Utah Legislature To Restrict Permits. You Will Have To Have A VA Permit

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member