"Utah Fixing Utah!" (To require home-state license)

I received the following e-mail from the lobbyist for the Texas State Rifle Association. Apparently she does not want residents of Texas to carry with a license from Utah.
________________________________________________

Utah Fixing Utah!

Dear Brent,

Utah state records show over 5,000 Texans are carrying with a Utah concealed handgun license. The majority of this number don't have dual residency, and didn't obtain their license while visiting or living in Utah. Most got their license right here in Texas from an instructor offering the Utah license.

Texas doesn't allow their license to be offered outside the state. Many feel Utah is "meddling" in other states' business.

You might be interested in knowing that folks carrying a handgun with an out-of-state license are not allowed past the metal detectors at the Texas Capitol, only because DPS verifies every licensee. This simply isn't possible with an out-of-state license and includes Texans carrying with a Utah license.

Senate moves to change gun permit rules
By Lee Davidson
The Salt Lake Tribune

First published Jan 28 2011 02:37PM
Updated Jan 29, 2011 12:09AM

Out-of-state gun owners who seek a Utah concealed-weapon permit - which is popular because it is recognized by most states - may soon first need to obtain a permit from their home state, if available.

The Senate voted 28-0 on Friday to give preliminary approval to SB34, which would make the change. A final vote is expected next week.

Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, the bill's sponsor, said the Utah permit is popular because it is recognized by 33 other states - the most of any state permit - so owners can carry guns in most places nationally with just that one certificate.

But he said states such as Nevada and New Mexico recently quit recognizing Utah permits. He said they claim that is out of concern that Utah permits do not require any measure of shooting proficiency, but he said the states actually appear upset that their own residents often apply only for a Utah license without also obtaining a local one.

Valentine said the bill would give states control over their own residents, help ensure that Utah permits are still recognized by potentially jealous states, and help Utah residents by ensuring their permits will be recognized more widely.

Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, said, "Guns are always an easy target, if you will, for people to pick on. But this is well thought-out. It's an important issue."

Join, Renew, or Upgrade your TSRA membership at www.tsra.com or call 800-462-8772. You won't lose a day by renewing early!

Keep the Faith,

Alice Tripp
Texas State Rifle Association

Personally, If TEXAS doesn't like THEIR residents using a UTAH permit to carry in Texas THEN Texas needs to change Texas law so that it requires Texas residents to have a TEXAS permit.

It ISN"T Utah meddling with Texas, it is Texas residents using the law in a way that benefits themselves and it is their right to do so.

Off my soap box now.

My reply:

Excuse me, Alice, but why would we celebrate a reciprocal state imposing further restrictions on its licensees, both resident and non-resident?

Why would we cheer Texas DPS not recognizing a reciprocal license under certain circumstances?

Exactly what needs to be "fixed" with Utah? And what businesses of it is TSRA's, particularly given the comment about "Utah 'meddling' in other states' business"?

I do not like the tone of this letter, and I don't appreciate TSRA implying that the Utah license should be limited in Texas, or that Utah should further restrict their license process.

From what I read on TexasCHLforum.com, it seems that most of the Texans with Utah licenses also have a Texas CHL. The few who don't either simply can't afford the Texas license, or have some Texas-specific disqualifiers (student loans or tax issues) that wouldn't restrict them in any other state.

So, please don't count me among the TSRA members who believe Utah should "fix" Utah.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, if Utah does not take some action to prevent the further loss of recognition of our permit, then the reason for many people to get that permit will be greatly reduced.

Last year over half of all applicants for Utah permits were not Utah residents. Most of those are not getting a permit so they can carry in Utah. Utah already honors all permits issued nationwide. Most of those applicants are getting the Utah permit so they can legally carry in the ~30 States that recognize the Utah permit.

We have lost Nevada and New Mexico. Texas is openly talking about dropping us. A couple of other States are talking privately about doing likewise.

How many and which States can drop recognition of the Utah permit before your reason for the getting the Utah permit is no longer present?

Those outside Utah need to be working with their home State legislatures to lower costs and reduce training requirements until their home State permits are not onerous to get. They might even push for constitutional carry as Alaska and Arizona have done and as we hope to pass soon in Utah.

Bypassing such activism by getting a Utah permit without having a home State permit (when you live in a shall issue State) hurts everyone as it creates an incentive for your State to stop recognizing the Utah permit.

Charles

This bill won't do anything

In my humble opinion this bill will do nothing to get Nevada to recognize the Utah permit.

The root of the issue is Nevada wants out of state residents to travel to Las Vegas, spend a weekend vacationing, and dropping money in the slot machines. Nevadans know where there money comes from, gambling! What better way to get good law abiding citizens to Nevada than have them spend $165 + training costs for a CCW permit? Not only does it take a full day for the training, but it takes significant time waiting in line at the Fingerprint Bureau in Las Vegas. Plan on a minimum of two full days spent in Nevada to get a permit. In the meantime be sure and pay the stupidity tax (gambling).

combatcarry said:

In my humble opinion this bill will do nothing to get Nevada to recognize the Utah permit.

Click to expand...

I agree. Nevada is gone. If Utah were to require live fire, listing of guns by serial number on the permit, and even impose a psych eval I fully expect Nevada would try to find some reason not to recognize our permit.

New Mexico? Maybe, maybe not.

And having not yet lost Texas or other States I believe we can reduce the odds of losing those States. We can also make it easier to get additional States to recognize our permit in the future.

This is a balancing act. If we imposed additional training requirements it would likely make it easier to get additional States to recognize our permit. If we made our permit any easier to obtain, we'd no doubt lose the recognition of some States.

I am loathe to impose any additional requirements on getting a Utah permit. Indeed, I doubt I could support any material increase in requirements for Utah residents. However, if imposing some very modest requirements on non-residents can shore up recognition of the Utah permit, I am ok with that. Not only does this protect part of the value of the permit for Utah residents, but it protects what is the major value of the permit for non-residents.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

I agree. Nevada is gone. If Utah were to require live fire, listing of guns by serial number on the permit, and even impose a psych eval I fully expect Nevada would try to find some reason not to recognize our permit.

New Mexico? Maybe, maybe not.

And having not yet lost Texas or other States I believe we can reduce the odds of losing those States. We can also make it easier to get additional States to recognize our permit in the future.

This is a balancing act. If we imposed additional training requirements it would likely make it easier to get additional States to recognize our permit. If we made our permit any easier to obtain, we'd no doubt lose the recognition of some States.

I am loathe to impose any additional requirements on getting a Utah permit. Indeed, I doubt I could support any material increase in requirements for Utah residents. However, if imposing some very modest requirements on non-residents can shore up recognition of the Utah permit, I am ok with that. Not only does this protect part of the value of the permit for Utah residents, but it protects what is the major value of the permit for non-residents.

Charles

Click to expand...

Not to mention when constitution carry passes in all it's glory, there's less of a constitutional issue with it as it's not needed to carry in Utah (though there's already universal recognition.

If it works, why are we "fixing it"? FL issues non-resident permits as do Nevada, Pennsylvania, and a host of other States. The FL reciprocity is on a par with UT. And, if out-of-state residents want to contribute $62.50 to the BCI, let them.

This is not a Utah problem to fix. It's a problem with other states who don't like their residents carrying on a Utah permit only.

These other states should disqualify their residents from carrying at home on a Utah permit if they don't like it.

And if Utah insists on bowing to this pressure, then why not just restrict residents of those few states only? Why cut off the residents of states who have very real privacy issues and who depend on Utah to keep a concealed permit "concealed" from public disclosure to the "nosybodies" and newspapers who sometimes print names and addresses, just because they hate gun owners and they can?

That would be a very simple change to the law, and not adversely affect anything Utah may be trying to do with the neighbor states.

TFred

TFred said:

This is not a Utah problem to fix. It's a problem with other states who don't like their residents carrying on a Utah permit only.

These other states should disqualify their residents from carrying at home on a Utah permit if they don't like it.

And if Utah insists on bowing to this pressure, then why not just restrict residents of those few states only? Why cut off the residents of states who have very real privacy issues and who depend on Utah to keep a concealed permit "concealed" from public disclosure to the "nosybodies" and newspapers who sometimes print names and addresses, just because they hate gun owners and they can?

That would be a very simple change to the law, and not adversely affect anything Utah may be trying to do with the neighbor states.

TFred

Click to expand...

TFred,

Respectfully, the answer to these questions is the same in the Utah section as it was earlier today over on the Virginia section.

This most certainly IS a Utah problem to fix. Maintaining recognition of the Utah permit is a significant concern for many who hold the Utah permit. It seems you hold a Utah permit only to carry in your home State of Virginia so as to avoid having to get a Virginia permit that is subject to public disclosure while the Utah permit protects privacy. So as long as Virginia recognizes the Utah permit you will be fine. But for a LOT of others, losing Texas would be a big problem. Losing New Mexico has been a problem already.

What all States should do is respect the 2nd Amendment and not require a permit.

Or simply recognize all permits as Utah does.

If you can effect such changes in other States, by all means do so. We will no longer have a problem to address.

Or, you might just persuade YOUR home State to make permit information private so that public records cannot be misused by the anti-gun press to intimidate, harass, or endanger permit holders.

OR, you might just persuade States that have a problem with their residents getting a Utah permit in lieu of a resident permit to do as Arizona has done and not recognize any non-res permits held by their residents. Can you do that? Because I can't.

I can effect some changes in the Utah legislature. I have ZERO ability to effect changes in New Mexico, or Texas, or even Virginia.

I work darn hard, without a cent of pay, to help make sure Utah's laws respect RKBA to the greatest extent possible. I have done so for 15 years and in that time have played a modest, positive role in improving Utah's gun laws.

I intend to continue working to improve Utah's gun laws. And I'd sure like some help. It is clear that you have benefited greatly from Utah's permit. May I ask what you have done to help Utah's residents improve or even maintain good laws in Utah?

I don't mean to be offensive. But I've explained to you why this change is taking place. I'm sorry it adversely affects you personally. But frankly, people like you who get a Utah permit for the primary purpose of avoiding a readily available, shall issue permit in their home State are the crux of the problem. This year it is Texas upset over revenue. A couple of years ago it was Virginia upset that someone was offering Utah permit courses on-line rather than in person. We had to outlaw on-line permit courses to stave off problems with that. I guess we could have limited that to just Virginia residents since it was Virginia expressing immediate concern. But it was obvious this was a concern additional States were going to have.

So it is with revenue and having residents essentially circumvent their home State process by getting a Utah permit.

I and other Utah RKBA activists are running out of energy to defend what amounts to bad conduct on the part of non-Utah-residents. And at the end of the day, my ability and that of other Utah residents to legally carry in Texas or New Mexico is of far more importance to me than your ability to carry in Virginia without getting a resident permit from Virginia.

So before you presume to pipe up again and tell me how Utah should fix our issues, or even what is or is not a Utah issue, go fix Virginia's problem with making permit data public. Your limited ability to fix that problem is no different than my limited ability to carve out some custom exception for Virginia residents.

Are we quite clear, sir?

Charles

utbagpiper said:

TFred,

Respectfully, the answer to these questions is the same in the Utah section as it was earlier today over on the Virginia section.

[...]

Are we quite clear, sir?

Charles

Click to expand...

Please be careful before you ascribe a nefarious motive to my post here, which is similar to my post in the Virginia forum.

In my post, I offered several clearly articulated reasons why I don't believe this is a Utah problem, and I offered suggestions on how Utah could better fix these other states' problems without affecting the states who don't have a problem.

The reason I posted here is to put more "Utah eyes" on my thoughts and suggestions, as I assume most Utah forum readers do not regularly visit the Virginia forum.

We can certainly agree to disagree on whose problem this is. In the end, it doesn't really matter, Utah has decided to try to fix it, and that is that.

As I've contemplated this issue, it is clear to me that it is indeed political blackmail and an effort by those other states to bully Utah into restricting what their own residents can do. I see that as an overt effort to circumvent those states' legislative processes, and thwarting the will of their people.

We have been fighting the privacy issue in Virginia for many years, and the closer we get, the more the liberals cheat - and I mean that quite literally as it is well documented - to subvert the legislative process to ensure that good gun laws are killed.

I do appreciate the permit that Utah offers, obviously, as I have one, but in my view they are caving to governments that are not behaving ethically.

If you pay the mob their "insurance" money, you may keep healthy knees, but is that something to be proud of?

V/R,

TFred

TFred said:

I do appreciate the permit that Utah offers, obviously, as I have one, but in my view they are caving to governments that are not behaving ethically.

If you pay the mob their "insurance" money, you may keep healthy knees, but is that something to be proud of?

V/R,

TFred

Click to expand...

We could just do as many other States do and stop offering non-res permits entirely. That solves a lot of problems and makes my life easier.

Maybe this is blackmail. Maybe the other States have a legitimate concern about their residents bypassing their permit process. You and I dislike permits being public records. But the law is the law in Virginia and so long as your legislature believes (however misguided) that Virginians licensed to carry concealed guns should be subject to public disclosure laws, then you are, in fact thwarting the Virginia law by carrying on a Utah permit. In Idaho it is the definition of mental illness that is more strict than in Utah. In some States it is differences in required hours of training.

Logically, the best solution for any such State is to follow Arizona's lead and just require their residents to get a resident permit to carry.

But this is politics, not logic. The truly logical thing to do is to respect the black letter language of the 2nd amendment and not even require permits.

At the end of the day, keeping Utahns' ability to legally carry in as many States as possible while not actually imposing any additional requirements on Utah residents is a winner for me. That is a lot more important than any false pride or bad analogies to the mob.

And my apologies for my tone earlier. I've been subjected to some rather unpleasant insults here the last few days at one of your new residents (transplanted from Washington State it seems) as he takes great offense at my unwillingness to defend some moron here who decided to loiter around an urban mall with a P-90 and handgun both in combat slings across his chest. What was looking to be a very good, easy session got very difficult very quickly because one guy didn't give any thought to political realities. So I'm a little stressed. Again, my apologies.

All my best.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

All my best.

Charles

Click to expand...

Thanks, and I understand.

I would just point out that I don't see myself as thwarting Virginia law, as certainly the legislators are aware that citizens may obtain an out-of-state permit, and if they objected, they could easily codify not accepting out-of-state permits held by residents.

I'd even go so far as to presume that a great many of our legislators view the Utah permit as a way around the onerous public document nature of our permit application, and maybe that is why they don't want to spend the political capital to fix it.

I still have a couple years before my current permit expires, I guess we will all continue our efforts in our respective capitols and ballot boxes!

TFred

In the case of Texas, it seems the only objection, and the reason TSRA is cheering for Utah to "fix Utah", is that there are Utah instructors in Texas advertising at gun shows that a Utah license can let you CC in Texas, even if you have student loan, back tax, or child support issues.

It seems that this is ammo for Texas politicians who don't want any ordinary citizen carrying guns, and they're attacking the Texas CHL program based on this.

I don't understand why they're so scared of a vocal minority, but they are. Everything our statewide organization does (yes, I'm a member) seems to be tinged with fear of the "what if?"

KBCraig said:

... a Utah license can let you CC in Texas, even if you have student loan, back tax, or child support issues.

Click to expand...

I'm not at all familiar with Texas law, but seriously, these are disqualifiers for a concealed permit in Texas? Money issues? I don't see how any of these would hold up in a post-Heller/McDonald court. Are poor people really not allowed to defend themselves from crime in Texas?

TFred

TFred said:

I'm not at all familiar with Texas law, but seriously, these are disqualifiers for a concealed permit in Texas? Money issues? I don't see how any of these would hold up in a post-Heller/McDonald court. Are poor people really not allowed to defend themselves from crime in Texas?

TFred

Click to expand...

Yes. You can't have been found in default on taxes or student loans and get a CHL in Texas. You can't get any license --CHL, hunting, fishing, driving, or professional-- if you owe back child support.

KBCraig said:

Yes. You can't have been found in default on taxes or student loans and get a CHL in Texas. You can't get any license --CHL, hunting, fishing, driving, or professional-- if you owe back child support.

Click to expand...

I could probably be convinced that is OK for things that are privileges, and especially for child support, but to deny a fundamental right based on a financial situation... that's rather draconian. I had no idea Texas had such a horrible law.

I'm operating under the assumption that Texas is still not an open carry state, and the only way to carry is with a license... denial of that, denies one the ability to carry for self-defense at all, correct?

TFred

TFred said:

I'm operating under the assumption that Texas is still not an open carry state, and the only way to carry is with a license... denial of that, denies one the ability to carry for self-defense at all, correct?

Click to expand...

There are multiple threads in the Texas forum about this, mostly concerning "travel" under PC 46.15, but here's the basic version:

Texas Penal Code 46.02 forbids carrying a handgun on or about one's person. Period. Concealed or not, loaded or not. There are exceptions and defenses to prosecution and "not applicable", and only two of those exceptions require carrying concealed: when carrying "under authority of" a Concealed Handgun License, and when carrying under the Motorist Protection Act, which allows unlicensed carry while in or en route to a car one owns or controls.

When traveling, when on property one owns or controls, when engaged in or en route to or from a sporting activity commonly requiring use of a handgun, etc., there is no requirement to conceal.

I did a quick Google search and found that Utah current has about 250,000 currently valid permits issued. For each new permit issued they collect $35 and each renewal means they collect $10. To me that sounds like a nice little sum of money they collect. If Utah wants to "fix" their issuing system to add more requirements or remove non-resident applications then it sounds like they could lose some serious income. If they wish to spite their face I'm not going to stop them.

I have a Utah permit. I got it because at the time Iowa was may-issue and was not widely recognized. I also got a Florida permit for the same reason. After the change in Iowa law to shall-issue and a standardized training requirement the Iowa permit is much more widely recognized. The only thing I get from the Utah permit now is permission to carry in Minnesota.

In Iowa it is increasingly common to find people offering combination Iowa/Florida/Utah courses which makes getting a Utah permit very attractive. I understand that Utah permits are popular in Minnesota and South Dakota as well. If they change their law then their permit might become irrelevant outside of Utah. Florida will take these people's money if Utah doesn't want it.

I would just point out that I don't see myself as thwarting Virginia law, as certainly the legislators are aware that citizens may obtain an out-of-state permit, and if they objected, they could easily codify not accepting out-of-state permits held by residents

Click to expand...

I think this is getting real close to the issue at hand here. The legislators in these states don't want to be seen as the "bad guy" in this fight. The trainers in these states see all kinds of money flowing to their competition. What is happening is that these two forces are acting on changing UTAH law so that they can all claim innocence in this. Anti-self-defense legislators in Utah are certainly willing to play along since it does not affect the residents that voted them in. They can claim they are not taking the guns from Utah residents and so they might be able to survive voter scrutiny as well. All the winners in this fight can point fingers at someone else while the people funding all of it lose out.

This may all become moot in time. More and more states are adopting shall-issue permit to carry laws, constitutional carry laws, and unlicensed open carry laws. Utah may only be expediting the irrelevancy of their own permit. When my Utah permit comes up for renewal in four years and they want a copy of my Iowa permit for the privilege then I will likely deny them the privilege of my $10. They already have my name, address, birth date, photo, fingerprints, and a good chunk of my money, if they want more than that then I don't have to do business with them.

IA_farmboy said:

If Utah wants to "fix" their issuing system to add more requirements or remove non-resident applications then it sounds like they could lose some serious income. If they wish to spite their face I'm not going to stop them.

Click to expand...

I doubt you could do anything to affect Utah law if you wanted to. I'm starting out a bit hostile because of how you have chosen to conduct yourself regarding laws outside your home State in the past including Arizona laws that have little or nothing to do with guns. Your initial tone here is similar so I won't even pretend to start with pleasantries Iowa.

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.

IA_farmboy said:

I have a Utah permit. I got it because at the time Iowa was may-issue and was not widely recognized.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

IA_farmboy said:

If they change their law then their permit might become irrelevant outside of Utah.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Let's just be clear and accurate with our information, shall we?

Charles