Kansan here, planning hiking trip to escalante, boulder area...wanting to open carry.

Unfortunately, this is not an "either-or" condition between UCA 76-10-502(1) and (2). Subparagraph (2) begins: "Pistols and revolvers shall also be deemed to be loaded... " which makes it an additional condition - "and" - under which a firearm is considered loaded. I had to work really hard to get myself to believe that, but I can see the remote possibility of an exposed hammer pistol/revolver without a transfer bar, and a round under the hammer, firing if dropped. However, I can't see that as any sort problem with concealed hammer or hammerless revolvers. I am in complete agreement with our knowledgeable visitor from NV, MAC702 - "The UCA should have defined "firing position" for THEIR purposes, especially since we all know the top charge hole is the last to fire, and no intent of the legislature would have wanted that one to be required to be empty." IMNSHO, our legislature needs to take a good, hard look at the ambiguous and confusing wording. I don't know that what we are seeing was actually their intent, but it reads as it reads. Pax...

Hey, I do not always agree with UT Law, but as a BCI Certified Firearms Permit Instructor, I teach the stuff the way the UT legislature wrote it. My crystal ball is in the repair shop, but I have often wondered and pondered why the UT legislature wrote the law the way they did.

I got an insight once I purchased and started teaching with a single action "cowboy" revolver. I had always wondered about the expression "going off half-cocked" until I learned about and began teaching the half-cock position of a single action revolver. If the mechanism fails or is jarred, the hammer will fall on and fire any live round directly under the hammer. (The half-cock position does not rotate the cylinders.)

Now, add to that the fact that UT CFP applicants have received (minimal) safety training in the handling of firearms, and that, unless they are a prohibited person (felon), citizens of UT can legally open carry in UT with an unknown amount of (if any) training in the safe handling of firearms, and one may attempt to discern the legislative intent. My guess is that the UT Legislature wanted to insure the right to bear arms, but also wanted to make regulations that would make that right more "idiot proof". The law does serve to steer law abiding citizens toward the permit process if they want to make sure their personal defense firearms are "ready to go" on the spot. This insures that they also have (minimal) firearms safety training.

Thus, the legislature's infamous "two actions to fire" thing. A single action revolver, in the half-cock position or not cocked position, in order to fire, with no live round under the firing pin, would require two actions to fire. Thus, if the first action was an "accident" (remember, persons without a permit are "untrained under UT Law"), the need for a second action would mitigate the mistake.

I am not a Lawyer in UT or any other State and these are my "best guess" as to why UT Unloaded is the way it is.