Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: How does Utah SB 36 affect you?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491

    How does Utah SB 36 affect you?

    Utah just passed SB 36 which requires that residents of states that recognize the Utah permit must show proof of a resident permit before they will issue their own. I'm not too happy about this and I believe it goes a bit too far in the information it gathers and treats people unfairly based only on where they live. I consider this law to be one step too far and I will not renew my Utah permit once it expires unless or until this requirement is removed. I suspect that many Iowans will not feel as I do and will gladly get a Utah permit given the wide recognition of the permit, the large number of combination Iowa/Utah/Florida permit classes in Iowa, and the still relatively low recognition of the Iowa permit in other states.

    Personally I obtained a Florida permit shortly before my trip to the 2010 NRA annual meeting as it allowed me to keep a firearm with me on my travels (I drove around Illinois on the way out, packed up my firearms on the way back per federal law as I made a dash across Illinois). Wishing to remained armed in travels to Minnesota I found that the Utah permit was the easiest to obtain of those recognized in Minnesota. Now that Iowa's permit is shall issue I used my Utah permit class to get an Iowa permit. Now armed with permits from Iowa and Florida, and the recent changes in laws in various states, the Utah permit gains me recognition only in Minnesota above those from my other two permits. With SB 36, and other changes in laws in several states, I'm considering which state permits I need in the future.

    I wonder how other Iowans feel about this. Do you have a Utah permit now? Do you plan on getting one? Is the requirement for a resident permit before getting a Utah permit a factor in your decision on getting one? Is recognition in Minnesota a factor in your decision? Do you have permits from other states? If so, which ones and why?

  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    245
    Utah's law change doesn't really affect me. They have every right to make the change as the effect of not doing so would have been to lose reciprocity with states that are too stupid/lazy to require that their residents have a resident permit(like Texas). Utah's legislature's first job is to take care of Utah's residents, they can worry about others after that.

    I don't have a Utah permit and have no intentions of getting one. As you've said, other than Minnesota or Washington, there is no reason to have a Utah permit. If I need a permit for travel I will most likely get the permit from AZ. I've only gone to/through Minnesota once and it was as a passenger on a family road trip as a child. I have family in South Dakota and taking the extra fraction of an hour to get there by traveling on Interstate 29 rather than utilizing interstates 35&90 are well worth it to me as I have distant family in the Sioux City and Sioux Falls areas.

    When it comes to cost/effectiveness, I always recommend the AZ permit. Other than Minnesota and Washington it covers pretty much everything that can be covered.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    14
    Too bad UT is passing this. Not sure why they are doing this.

    I'm sure they will lose $$ from people in IL, MN and other states who obtained UT permits INSTEAD of getting a permit from their own State or because their own State doesn't issue permits. I know someone in MN who got his UT permit, but didn't bother to get a MN permit.

    UT for me was a better deal than FL. UT was cheaper and I did want to make sure I could carry in MN.

    AZ, that's an interesting option. Iowans gain KS, and NM, but lose MN and WA by moving from the UT permit to the AZ permit.

    If I'm reading AZ requirements correctly, you need to take their training or (gasp) send in a copy of your resident State carry permit - same as the new UT requirement.

    No, I don't like the new UT requirement to send in a copy of your resident State permit, but I figure they got enough info from me (including fingerprints) already anyway, so not sure if you are disclosing much other than your IA permit #.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by no4gman View Post
    Too bad UT is passing this. Not sure why they are doing this.
    My understanding is that some states were having issues with residents getting Utah permits instead of resident permits. The laws in these states permit the carry of concealed weapons for anyone that has a recognized permit, resident and non-resident alike. In states like Texas getting the resident permit requires much more time and money than the Utah permit so few residents actually get a Texas permit and almost no non-residents get Texas permits.

    What a couple of states have done to "encourage" residents to get a resident permit is to drop recognition of the Utah permit. This has become a trend with Texas threatening to drop recognition of the Utah permit with New Mexico and Nevada having already done so. With this trend becoming more apparent to Utah residents there has been a call to fix this problem. The solution they came up with is to require resident permits for any non-resident, with exceptions that I'll get to later.

    I'm sure they will lose $$ from people in IL, MN and other states who obtained UT permits INSTEAD of getting a permit from their own State or because their own State doesn't issue permits. I know someone in MN who got his UT permit, but didn't bother to get a MN permit.
    When it comes to states that do not issue permits then Utah will waive that requirement of a non-resident of having a resident permit. This just shows that some people are more equal than others. All people applying should be held to the same standard.

    UT for me was a better deal than FL. UT was cheaper and I did want to make sure I could carry in MN.

    AZ, that's an interesting option. Iowans gain KS, and NM, but lose MN and WA by moving from the UT permit to the AZ permit.
    An Arizona permit would be an interesting option. Can I apply for one by mail like the Florida and Utah permits?

    If I'm reading AZ requirements correctly, you need to take their training or (gasp) send in a copy of your resident State carry permit - same as the new UT requirement.
    It's not like the Utah requirement, Utah requires taking a training course from a Utah recognized instructor AND sending in a copy of your resident permit. If it was one or the other then I would not have a problem.

    No, I don't like the new UT requirement to send in a copy of your resident State permit, but I figure they got enough info from me (including fingerprints) already anyway, so not sure if you are disclosing much other than your IA permit #.
    You are correct, the amount of information disclosed is minimal. What it does do is raise a lot of questions. What if my resident permit expires? Will my Utah permit remain valid? If it choose to no longer get a resident permit would I still be able to renew my Utah permit? What is done with that information? Is the status of my Iowa permit somehow monitored? Will Utah be calling up the sheriff's office to tell them I have a Utah permit now?

    The name, address, birthdate aspect of the application process does not bother me a whole lot since that is really public record in many ways. The fingerprinting does not bother me since that ship has sailed when I joined the Army, so one more copy of my fingerprints floating around does not bother me. Had I not already given my fingerprints then I'm pretty sure I'd be reluctant to give them now.

    What really bothers me about this is the unequal application of the law. Depending on where one lives the application process is different. People from Illinois, Wisconsin, Vermont, and the District get a pass on the cost of getting a resident permit because those places do not offer one. Another thing that bothers me is that it serves no law enforcement purpose because if it did it would have been a matter years ago.

    What also bothers me is that the residents of Utah chose to place restrictions on non-residents so that they would not have to be inconvenienced in getting a permit from some of their neighboring states. Not only was this law change selfish there is a good chance it will not have the desired effect. It's unlikely that the recognition of the Utah permit will be restored in those states that recently dropped the recognition of the Utah permit but states like Texas will probably still drop recognition of Utah permits because it does nothing to Texas laws which allow residents to continue to get non-resident permits and carry within Texas. Unless states like Florida follow suit (which is very unlikely) then Texas might still drop recognition of the Utah permit and everyone loses on this deal.

    One more thing...
    Since Utah already recognizes all other state permits for non-residents then no one with a resident permit is required to have a Utah permit to carry within Utah. Just further evidence that Utah could lose a lot of non-resident license holders over this. This law will discourage non-residents from getting permits. I don't believe that was the intent but that will be the result. This could back-fire on them in a huge way. It is quite likely that they do not regain recognition from states that dropped Utah before, and that states will still drop Utah recognition be it from poorly worded legislation, out of spite, ignorance of the Utah law change, the state reciprocity laws require it, or just because they drop recognition of all out of state licenses to encourage in state licensing.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    65

    Utah Instructor living in Utah

    First, lets not fool ourselves. The State of Utah is going to pass laws for the benefit of Utah and it's people. While passing this law may affect you negatively, it was done for the longevity of the widely recognized permit.

    Second, the reasoning explained during the legislative hearings was this. A number of states came forth saying they were going to drop respirosity with Utah because we did not require a 'live fire'. We had already lost a state or two because of this so our lawmakers listened closely. They looked into this and found it was not necessarily so much about the 'live fire' but more about:

    1. Citizens of that state were bypassing the requirement of their home state to get a CCW and going directly to Utah's. Home states did not appreciate this.

    2. The home state was loosing big $$$.

    Each home state simply wished to have authority over their CCW carriers. If Utah did not take this step, it would likely result in a number of states dropping Utah altogether. Now who would that benefit?

    Please just realize that the Utah permit was never intended to be a 'national permit' so please do not be surprised when the laws surrounding it do not benefit other states. I would hope that you would obtain your home states permit and still keep Utah's for when you travel. It's nice to have so many states onboard and with this change, maybe we can gain one or two more since it show we can play nice. It you wish to drop Utah, well, that is your choice.
    Last edited by Deepdiver36; 04-15-2011 at 03:09 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    306
    So basically, the free market was working great and people were choosing the most beneficial (in terms of time, money, or convenience) option to get carry permits.

    The states that had less-useful permits got annoyed that people were obeying the actual law instead of what they *felt* the people should do, and used restrictive laws and government pressure (AKA protectionism) to force other government entities to change and make their offering less useful so that the annoyed party could make more money from charging people to exercise their rights.

    Yup, this is definitely the United States.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by amaixner View Post
    So basically, the free market was working great and people were choosing the most beneficial (in terms of time, money, or convenience) option to get carry permits.

    The states that had less-useful permits got annoyed that people were obeying the actual law instead of what they *felt* the people should do, and used restrictive laws and government pressure (AKA protectionism) to force other government entities to change and make their offering less useful so that the annoyed party could make more money from charging people to exercise their rights.

    Yup, this is definitely the United States.
    Very well articulated! Aint it a biatch!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    An Arizona permit would be an interesting option. Can I apply for one by mail like the Florida and Utah permits?

    Yes you can. Arizona. Any permit that you currently have that required training will suffice for the training requirement. $60 for initial and $43 for renewals. Fingerprints are required for initial but not for renewals. Prints can be done by anyone, not necessarily by LEA like FL requires. They are currently running on about 2 week turn around.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by Deepdiver36 View Post
    First, lets not fool ourselves. The State of Utah is going to pass laws for the benefit of Utah and it's people. While passing this law may affect you negatively, it was done for the longevity of the widely recognized permit.
    I really didn't intend to get into this discussion here as I have had similar ones in the Utah sub-forum after hearing about the law change. Since I touched on this in my response above I'll continue. I'll just say I hope I don't regret responding since I already regret getting this far by going off on a rant in answering nog4man's questions.

    I understand that the state of Utah is going to act in the benefit of the citizens of Utah. What concerns me is that I have doubts it will achieve the desired result.

    Second, the reasoning explained during the legislative hearings was this. A number of states came forth saying they were going to drop respirosity with Utah because we did not require a 'live fire'. We had already lost a state or two because of this so our lawmakers listened closely. They looked into this and found it was not necessarily so much about the 'live fire' but more about: ...
    This is where much of my doubt lies. These states said publicly that the problem lies in Utah not having a live fire component while in private saying it was a matter of loss of revenue (for the state and the trainers in Texas) and loss of control over who gets permits. What Utah has done is address the real reason for the protest but has done nothing about the stated reasons. These states might drop the matter and hope no one notices their hypocrisy but there is also a chance that the matter will continue and Utah loses out anyway.

    What the law change in Utah does not do is change the law in other states that issue non-resident permits. For example Florida allows for permit applications by mail, does require live fire, but the permit is still cheaper and easier to obtain than the Texas permit. People in Texas have been getting Utah permits primarily because they are cheaper than Florida's. What I suspect will happen is that unless Florida or Texas law changes then Texas residents will just get Florida permits and Texas will continue to have this lack of revenue and control.

    This is what I suspect will happen, these trainers in Texas will now just shift to pushing for people to get a Florida permit to get around the lengthy training, and higher fees, of the Texas permit. Once that reaches some level of awareness among competing trainers, lawmakers, gun grabbers, etc. the matter will come up again and this time I doubt Florida will flinch like Utah did. The law will change and Utah will lose out anyway.

    I believe is all you did is buy yourself a couple years before the inevitable happens.

    Each home state simply wished to have authority over their CCW carriers. If Utah did not take this step, it would likely result in a number of states dropping Utah altogether. Now who would that benefit?
    I'm saying that even though Utah did take this step I have a feeling that these states will drop Utah anyway. No one benefitted with the change. If the status quo had held then at least the Utah permit would remain as sought after as it was before, excepting Texas. Since Utah tossed non-residents under the bus then non-residents will be less willing to come to Utah's defense in the future. That is because the problem did not lie with Utah but with the other states. Utah can do nothing to fix this.

    Please just realize that the Utah permit was never intended to be a 'national permit' so please do not be surprised when the laws surrounding it do not benefit other states. I would hope that you would obtain your home states permit and still keep Utah's for when you travel. It's nice to have so many states onboard and with this change, maybe we can gain one or two more since it show we can play nice. It you wish to drop Utah, well, that is your choice.
    Yes, it is my choice to drop Utah and I will keep the permit only so long as it stays valid as I have no intention of renewing it. I realize that Utah did not intend to create a national permit to carry for non-residents but it seems that is the intent now for residents. If the matter was only to make sure that people that carry within the state can do so lawfully and safely then this change in law would not have been even considered. There was something driving this change. This came from trainers, politicians, and gun grabbers outside Utah trying to get Utah residents upset about the prospect of losing recognition in places like Texas. Utah residents fell for it and gun grabbing Utah politicians, and useful idiot politicians in the pro-gun side, were happy to comply.

    I spoke of inevitability before and there are a couple of inevitable outcomes that will make this law change moot in time. One inevitable outcome is that since Utah did not address the stated reasons for threatening to drop recognition of their permit (even though they met the unstated real reasons for the protest) the Utah permit will soon drop from recognition in these states anyway. That lowers the value in getting a Utah permit for resident and non-resident.

    Another inevitable outcome is the right to carry movement will continue winning with phase two. Phase one was "shall issue", phase two is "constitutional carry". Many states, including Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, and even Utah, are considering "constitutional carry". As this becomes law in more and more states the value in the Utah permit lowers for resident and non-resident.

    The value in getting a Utah permit to carry concealed weapons will inevitably drop. All Utah did in this change in law is speed up the drop in value for non-residents while holding that value up for residents for another year or so.

    I didn't start this thread to discuss the value of the law change for Utahans, I started this thread to discuss the change in value of the Utah law to Iowans. I made my doubts known to the value of this law change to Utahans in the Utah sub-forum and touched on them again here. The value of the Utah permit to me is now low enough that I do not intend to renew. This is not just because of the law change in Utah but also because of the law change in Iowa. I applied for my Utah permit before the change in law in Iowa, had I put off my application for the Utah permit for another month or two I probably would not have applied. I'm thankful that I did get the Utah permit now only because I had the training required by Iowa law before the change in law. After the law change the training courses were packed with applicants. I was able to apply on day one without having to stand in line.

    What I was curious about is if other Iowans felt as I did about Utah law concerning non-resident applicants for permits to carry concealed weapons. So far I have a tie, one thumbs up, one thumbs down.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by amaixner View Post
    So basically, the free market was working great and people were choosing the most beneficial (in terms of time, money, or convenience) option to get carry permits.
    Yes, the free market at work. Utah should not be surprised at a drop of non-resident applicants.

    The states that had less-useful permits got annoyed that people were obeying the actual law instead of what they *felt* the people should do, and used restrictive laws and government pressure (AKA protectionism) to force other government entities to change and make their offering less useful so that the annoyed party could make more money from charging people to exercise their rights.

    Yup, this is definitely the United States.
    Yes, it is unfortunate that protectionism trumps doing what is right.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjam2jab View Post
    Yes you can. Arizona. Any permit that you currently have that required training will suffice for the training requirement. $60 for initial and $43 for renewals. Fingerprints are required for initial but not for renewals. Prints can be done by anyone, not necessarily by LEA like FL requires. They are currently running on about 2 week turn around.
    Arizona allows a DD-214 as proof of training like Florida which is nice. The fees are lower too. Had I known that I probably would have got a permit from Arizona instead. It looks like a new Arizona permit is cheaper than a renewal of the Florida one. I suspect given the time it will take for my Florida permit to expire, and the rate of the success in the right to carry movement, I may not have a desire to get an out of state permit when the time comes.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    65

    Wink FarmBoy, I understand your frustration

    You could be very correct in your assertion that this change might not work. I would point out that there are large number of unknowns. The Representative that sponsored this bill is very, very pro 2A. He would not have proposed this unless it was going to qualm the concerns of the other states. He may have even worked out a deal with them. I guess only time will tell.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by Deepdiver36 View Post
    The Representative that sponsored this bill is very, very pro 2A. He would not have proposed this unless it was going to qualm the concerns of the other states.
    I have not followed Utah law on this too closely and have not made myself familiar with the names of the people behind this. If this Representative is as pro-RKBA as you imply then I would assume this same Representative has been supportive of constitutional carry. In my mind anyone not supportive of constitutional carry laws does not view the Second Amendment and the US Constitution as binding law. That is not how I always felt but the times have changed and the bar has been set higher because of it. I would prefer that Utah took the Vermont route and did not issue permits to carry weapons at all. Perhaps this Representative can show his understanding of our rights by leading that effort.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deepdiver36 View Post
    I guess only time will tell.
    Exactly. Please forgive me if I enjoy a bit of schadenfreude if Texas drops recognition of the Utah permit anyway. It seems that Utah is fighting so hard to keep their permits to carry weapons relevant while the rest of the nation is doing everything they can to do the opposite. Also, it seems to me that the people in Utah have become so focused on the ability to carry lawfully in other states that they seem to have lost sight of that same ability in their own state. It has become almost comical to me on how so many people from Utah have been defending this law change with "Utah needs to do what is best for Utah" when what is really best for Utah is constitutional carry.

    Utah needs to realize that this does not fix the problem. People in Texas will now look to states like Arizona and Florida for their permits and this will start all over again. Problem is that I highly doubt Arizona and Florida will fold like Utah has done. Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, and now Utah have all taken their turns in this game. Soon Texas will take its turn and we will see the value in what Utah has done.

    Again I go off topic. This is a forum about Iowa, not Utah, Texas, or Arizona. I do know that Utah classes in Iowa have become very popular because it fulfills the training requirements for Utah, Iowa, and Florida permits and perhaps a few other states like Arizona. I have no idea how many Iowans have been actually applying for Utah permits but the availability of the classes has improved greatly recently. Minnesota's recognition of the Utah permit has to be a factor in driving the applications for a Utah permit from Iowans.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    According to the NRA Minnesota is considering a bill that would provide for universal recognition of permits to carry weapons.

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6683

    I suspect that if that bill passes into law it would change the calculus that people go through in deciding the value of a Utah permit. There is a universal recognition bill in Oregon as well. There's also three states where a constitutional carry bill seems to be doing well. Since people get the Utah permit to carry in many of the states with these bills my suspicions may come true sooner than I thought, the Utah permit might become redundant with the new legislation in these states this year.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    According to the NRA Minnesota is considering a bill that would provide for universal recognition of permits to carry weapons.

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6683

    I suspect that if that bill passes into law it would change the calculus that people go through in deciding the value of a Utah permit. There is a universal recognition bill in Oregon as well. There's also three states where a constitutional carry bill seems to be doing well. Since people get the Utah permit to carry in many of the states with these bills my suspicions may come true sooner than I thought, the Utah permit might become redundant with the new legislation in these states this year.
    That's exactly right. If MN starts accepting the IA permit, I won't renew the UT permit. My permit doesn't expire for another 3 years though, so a lot can change in the meantime. The IA/AZ combination appears to be the best option going forward.

    I'm hoping in 3 years we don't need any permits at all though. Forcing law-abiding citizens through all these hoops of the permit process doesn't appear to have armed any criminals. The only thing permits do is hassle law-abiding citizens, create jobs for trainers and government workers, and bring in a tiny bit of revenue for the States.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    Quote Originally Posted by no4gman View Post
    That's exactly right. If MN starts accepting the IA permit, I won't renew the UT permit. My permit doesn't expire for another 3 years though, so a lot can change in the meantime. The IA/AZ combination appears to be the best option going forward.

    I'm hoping in 3 years we don't need any permits at all though. Forcing law-abiding citizens through all these hoops of the permit process doesn't appear to have armed any criminals. The only thing permits do is hassle law-abiding citizens, create jobs for trainers and government workers, and bring in a tiny bit of revenue for the States.
    Digging up an old thread are we?

    I also hope that we won't need permits before my current permits expire. I believe the US Constitution, as amended, protects our right to do so. I have a list of states that have introduced constitutional carry laws this year and I've been checking websites, including this one, for information on the progress of those laws. If my count is correct there were 13 states that introduced bills this year to remove the need to have permits to carry a concealed weapon. Only Wyoming has been successful in that effort so far. It sounds like Illinois might get constitutional protections on the right to carry a weapon of self defense on their persons this year since there are a handful of court cases that brought this issue up. I suspect the legislature will feel threatened enough that a permit to carry system will be put in place to avoid having these cases even getting to court. So, we are getting there... slowly.

    Anyway, I've been following a similar thread to this one in the Wisconsin sub-forum which caused me to investigate the progress of the Minnesota law on universal recognition of permits. The bill appears to have died. I suspect this issue will come up again next year in Minnesota.

    Also because of some things brought to my attention recently I've been investigating alternatives to the Utah permit so I may carry lawfully in Minnesota. From my research there are four permits that Iowans can obtain to lawfully carry a weapon in Minnesota, there's Utah, Nevada, Texas, and of course Minnesota.

    Since this discussion started with me feeling wronged by Utah I'm ruling this state permit out. If they want to treat me as a second class citizen then they don't need my money.

    IIRC the Nevada permit can only be obtained in Nevada. Given that I have no plans to visit there any time soon I'm pretty much ruling that out too.

    The Texas permit is also only available inside that state. Since the NRA Annual Meeting is going to be there in a couple years I'm considering this alternative. The permit is expensive at $140 for a new permit but they do offer discounts to many people. One that I qualify for is the veteran discounted permit at $70. This brings the price on par with new permits from Arizona and Utah, and less than a renewal permit from Florida. Given the wide recognition of the Texas and Iowa permits I could possibly do without renewing my Florida permit, which will lower my total costs as well. The one thing that concerns me is the cost of the training. I did a quick search to get an idea on the cost of the Texas CHL training and most places seem to charge over $100 for the one day training. There is also a logistical challenge here, I'd have to fit the Texas CHL class around my trip to the NRA Annual Meeting to make this trip work.

    The Minnesota permit is only available in that state but since it is so close it would seem obvious for Iowans to pick that state to get a permit to carry while in that state. The cost of the permit is legislatively set at the cost of processing and not to exceed $100. Each sheriff can set their price and for non-residents the applications need to be handed to any one in person. The classes cost in the $100 range, much like the Texas permit. A combination of the Iowa and Minnesota permits will allow Iowans to carry in a nearly identical list of states as the Iowa/Texas combination.

    There I go again, writing another novel. I'll get to my point and wrap this up. The law change in Utah has pissed me off enough that I went through the effort of compiling the above information on alternative state permits. I put it here for my own future reference and so that others can take advantage of it if they wish. This law change in Utah has also pissed me off enough that I'm considering a drive to Texas to get a permit there.

    What I hope will happen, and what I suspect WILL happen, is that Minnesota (and a handful of other states) will change their laws on the carrying of self defense weapons by the time my current permits expire, which should lead me to feel that I will not need to hold a permit other than my Iowa Permit to Carry. If not then I guess I'm going to Texas.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •