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.