Utah doesn't want my money

[IA_farmboy]

I received my renewal letter for my Utah carry permit the other day. I see that they changed the rules on me, now they want a picture of my Iowa permit or they will not renew my Utah permit. So I put the renewal form in the paper shredder and am considering to do the same to my Utah permit. I'm not sure why I haven't just fed it to the shredder already, probably a bit of insurance in case I decide to drive to Minnesota.

Whether or not I shred the permit will become irrelevant soon. It will expire in a couple months and Minnesota has bills that passed in both the House and Senate to allow for universal recognition of out of state permits, it must go through reconciliation and be signed by the governor. We shall see which happens first, my Utah permit expiration or a new Minnesota law.

If Minnesota passes their permit recognition bill into law then they are showing me that they want my money. I'd feel more confident traveling into the state knowing I have a permit to carry that they recognize. Utah on the other hand, forget them. Until they do something about the stupid law they passed on out of state permits I'm done with them.

 

[MAC702]

It was a weird situation. UT's permits were so cheap, that some states, especially TX, were complaining about their residents using the UT permit instead of their home state permit. Some states, like NV, passed a law requiring our own residents to have a home state permit to carry at home. Some states, like NV, stopped recognizing UT permits (for various reasons). But a lot of states, especially TX, complained loud enough that UT passed a law that if your home state recognized the UT permit, you would have to have your home state permit in order to apply for or renew your UT permit.

Since IA does recognize the UT permit, you have to show proof of holding an IA permit for home purposes before you can be issued a UT permit for traveling purposes. It at least makes some sense, even though all permits for this right are wrong.

It's not an issue of UT not wanting your money, but of them recognizing that IA deserves your money before they do. If your IA permit is more expensive, or less recognized, your real beef is with them.

 

[IA_farmboy]

It's not an issue of UT not wanting your money, but of them recognizing that IA deserves your money before they do. If your IA permit is more expensive, or less recognized, your real beef is with them.

I realize why Utah changed the law as they did. I also realize that Utah offered a service that they were not obligated to offer. Because they offered a service I found useful they got my money, they earned it because their product allowed me to carry a weapon legally in Minnesota. Then they changed the rules, now their service is no longer appealing to me. I have my own level of expense that I am willing to give for their service, they changed the "price" (as cost is more than just money) and now I do not feel the desire to do business with them.

I find it insulting that my own government requires I get their permission before I may lawfully carry a tool useful for defense of myself and others. If I am to have a "beef" with anyone it's any state that requires such permission. I have a beef with Iowa. I have a beef with Minnesota. I didn't have a beef with Utah before because they offered a workaround to the silly laws in Minnesota, that is until I saw the change in the price. Utah is doing what few other states are doing, increasing restrictions on the carry of self defense tools. Most every other state in this federation is reducing restrictions, that includes Iowa and Minnesota.

I thank the people and government of Utah for their service in the past, I was quite pleased with their product. Now I see the competition has lowered their costs for similar product while Utah has increased it. This is free market economics at work. Unless they change their costs for their product to what it was before then they are telling me that they don't want my money. I heard their message, I doubt they heard mine.

 

[solus]

you seem to have been doing your homework...have you checked this site out?

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/NonResidentPermits.pdf

ipse

 

[IA_farmboy]

you seem to have been doing your homework...have you checked this site out?

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/NonResidentPermits.pdf

ipse

I have seen handgunlaw.us before but I prefer usacarry.com as a reference. NRAILA.org is another good site, IMHO.

 

[Maverick9]

I realize why Utah changed the law as they did. I also realize that Utah offered a service that they were not obligated to offer. Because they offered a service I found useful they got my money, they earned it because their product allowed me to carry a weapon legally in Minnesota. Then they changed the rules, now their service is no longer appealing to me. I have my own level of expense that I am willing to give for their service, they changed the "price" (as cost is more than just money) and now I do not feel the desire to do business with them.

I find it insulting that my own government requires I get their permission before I may lawfully carry a tool useful for defense of myself and others. If I am to have a "beef" with anyone it's any state that requires such permission. I have a beef with Iowa. I have a beef with Minnesota. I didn't have a beef with Utah before because they offered a workaround to the silly laws in Minnesota, that is until I saw the change in the price. Utah is doing what few other states are doing, increasing restrictions on the carry of self defense tools. Most every other state in this federation is reducing restrictions, that includes Iowa and Minnesota.

I thank the people and government of Utah for their service in the past, I was quite pleased with their product. Now I see the competition has lowered their costs for similar product while Utah has increased it. This is free market economics at work. Unless they change their costs for their product to what it was before then they are telling me that they don't want my money. I heard their message, I doubt they heard mine.

It's ironic that states are spending all this time trying to inspect and change laws related to law-abiding citizens having the ability to self-defend against the ever rising degree of predatory behavior while their enforcement agents drive around looking for OC-ers walking dogs while actual criminals have a field day with 'gun-free zones' and the ability to break into cars parked nearby many guaranteed to have firearms stored there.

It's delusional and magical thinking at its finest, at work thanks to the rage-o-holic, bullying, lying, political-agenda having antis.

 

[MAC702]

I have seen handgunlaw.us before but I prefer usacarry.com as a reference. NRAILA.org is another good site, IMHO.

Unlike Gary Slider's (a member here) www.handgunlaw.us, I can't find a single page at usacarry.com that doesn't have significant errors. I went there again to check today, and, after having to get around the pop-up ads, couldn't get 30 seconds without them telling me OR was a shall-issue state to non-residents. WRONG.

 

[MAC702]

I realize why Utah changed the law as they did. I also realize that Utah offered a service that they were not obligated to offer. Because they offered a service I found useful they got my money, they earned it because their product allowed me to carry a weapon legally in Minnesota. Then they changed the rules, now their service is no longer appealing to me. I have my own level of expense that I am willing to give for their service, they changed the "price" (as cost is more than just money) and now I do not feel the desire to do business with them.

I find it insulting that my own government requires I get their permission before I may lawfully carry a tool useful for defense of myself and others. If I am to have a "beef" with anyone it's any state that requires such permission. I have a beef with Iowa. I have a beef with Minnesota. I didn't have a beef with Utah before because they offered a workaround to the silly laws in Minnesota, that is until I saw the change in the price. Utah is doing what few other states are doing, increasing restrictions on the carry of self defense tools. Most every other state in this federation is reducing restrictions, that includes Iowa and Minnesota.

I thank the people and government of Utah for their service in the past, I was quite pleased with their product. Now I see the competition has lowered their costs for similar product while Utah has increased it. This is free market economics at work. Unless they change their costs for their product to what it was before then they are telling me that they don't want my money. I heard their message, I doubt they heard mine.

Understood, and an excellent application of economics.

Do you have your home state's permit?

 

[utbagpiper]

I thank the people and government of Utah for their service in the past, I was quite pleased with their product. Now I see the competition has lowered their costs for similar product while Utah has increased it. This is free market economics at work. Unless they change their costs for their product to what it was before then they are telling me that they don't want my money. I heard their message, I doubt they heard mine.

I appreciate the even-handed observations. But I don't see many permits that are less expensive to renew.

Just one note, Utah has never wanted anyone's money on permits. We've worked very hard to keep the permit costs as close to break even for the State as we possibly can. We don't want the State nor any State agency to have a profit motive in how permits are administered. Utah's "profit" from some 300,000 non-resident permits amounts to a few clerks working at the Utah BCI who otherwise might not have a job processing permit applications and renewals.

Currently, the renewal fee is $15.00 via mail, or $15.75 on-line; permit is good for 5 years; no re-training nor fingerprints required. In addition to the money, you need an updated photo. completed renewal form, and for a non-resident from a State that recognizes a Utah permit, a photocopy of your currently valid home-State resident permit.

Additionally, Utah has long since recognized without limit nor reservation permits issued anywhere else in the nation. So it isn't like those from shall issue States, nor even those from may-issue States who can get a permit, need a Utah permit to carry in Utah (excepting the federal GFSZ law that I'm not aware any Utah LEOs have ever enforced, though I couldn't swear to that).

If you no longer have need of a Utah permit, that may be a very good sign that many other States are progressing toward greater recognition of our RKBA and are making it easier for LACs to legally carry firearms for self-defense.

God speed and keep up the good work.

Charles

 

[IA_farmboy]

Understood, and an excellent application of economics.

Do you have your home state's permit?

Yes I do. After the law changed to shall issue I got my permit. Years ago, while planning for a cross country drive to visit family, I thought I should get what permits I could to prevent legal issues as went from state to state. I was able to obtain the Utah and Florida permits with relatively short notice.

 

[Tucker6900]

If you no longer have need of a Utah permit, that may be a very good sign that many other States are progressing toward greater recognition of our RKBA and are making it easier for LACs to legally carry firearms for self-defense.

Charles

Laughable. An ease in the process of asking permission to exercise a right is hardly recognition. It only makes an argument for the politicians who will say "Look! You dont have to do much to carry a gun! I did that! Look at what I did!"

The ONLY thing that would show recognition is a complete repeal of any and all permitting laws. And then on top of that, the state needs to create a preemption law that has teeth, and the right guard dogs in place to actually enforce it, because until we have police employees and judges who will hold the state and local governments accountable, all is for naught.

 

[IA_farmboy]

I appreciate the even-handed observations. But I don't see many permits that are less expensive to renew.

That's your opinion, of course, since I have stated that I view costs as measured in more than dollars and cents. I don't appreciate being treated as a second class citizen so I'm doing what I can to voice my displeasure in that. Treating applicants different based on where they live is, in my mind, a violation of the premise of equal application of the law. Everyone should have the same application requirements, resident or nonresident, Iowan or Texan.

I have little doubt in my mind that the powers that be did their own economic assessment. I suspect that they did the math on what the permits would cost if they lost the income of the large number of Texans by not changing the law versus keeping them by changing the law. Effectively non-residents are subsidizing the cost of the permit system in Utah for the residents. The powers that be had to know that if they applied a non-resident rule equally, as in all non-residents must prove the applicant has a resident permit from their state, that they'd also lose a lot of money from applications. So they come up with this complex system of what states an applicant resides determines whether or not they must have a resident permit first. They did this, again by my estimation, to both maximize revenue and allow for plausible deniability that it was solely as a reaction to threats from the powers that be in Texas.

I am but one man so my choice probably raised the cost to Utahans by a fraction of a penny per permit issued. With more than one half million permits issued my effect on the costs is probably even less than that. If I can get more people to agree with me then maybe, perhaps, we can see a real change. Even if I don't change the minds of the powers that be in Utah I have at least made myself someone no longer subsidizing what I oppose.

 

[IA_farmboy]

Laughable. An ease in the process of asking permission to exercise a right is hardly recognition. It only makes an argument for the politicians who will say "Look! You dont have to do much to carry a gun! I did that! Look at what I did!"

The ONLY thing that would show recognition is a complete repeal of any and all permitting laws. And then on top of that, the state needs to create a preemption law that has teeth, and the right guard dogs in place to actually enforce it, because until we have police employees and judges who will hold the state and local governments accountable, all is for naught.

I will go further. I say that any law that criminalizes the use of, possession of (outside of theft), or carry of any weapon is a violation of the US Constitution.

It's at this point I get some "genius" that asks, "But what about prison inmates? You want them armed?" To those I think the best response is to throw up my hands, state plainly "You got me!", offer them a dollar bill as a reward, pat them on the head, and point them in the direction of the nearest vending machine or candy vendor to spend their prize money.

What I mean by repeal of all weapon law is that "armed robbery" is no longer a crime. We already have that covered with the crime of "robbery", for robbery that involves injury to another we have "aggravated robbery" and/or additional crimes against assault. No more "felon in possession of a deadly weapon" since if these people are not to be trusted with a deadly weapon then they should be confined.

I agree that the politicians that give us back our liberty incrementally are not to be praised, they are buying votes with liberties that their predecessors took from us. In some cases these politicians have been in office so long they allowed our freedoms to be taken away in the first place. It seems that once a politician gets into public office the only way they leave is feet first. (As in from being carried out in a coffin.)

I know I'm off topic here but I'd like to finish that thought on politicians being in office for so long. I did the math once and a person can go from one elected office to another, never being elected to the same office twice, and spend their entire adult working life as an elected official.

Here's a list of possible progression from local office on up:
- County commissioner
- Sheriff
- City council member
- Mayor
- State House
- State Senate
- US House
- US Senate
- State governor
- VPOTUS
- POTUS

I compute that to be 44 years in elected office. That also does not include appointed positions like judges/justices, attorneys general, military general officers, cabinet officers, and ambassadors. No one should serve in the same office twice. If they do a good job then they should be able to handle the next level up. Once they've reached the peak of their capability then they should return to private life and allow another to step in. We've created a de facto ruling class and it needs to stop.

 

[solus]

On the other hand there is this, "DHS secretary: Lone-wolf attackers could ‘strike at any moment’* " Meanwhile, shortly I have to drive through Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and North Carolina.
Snip...
QUOTE]

visiting the western part of the Tarheel state?

ipse

 

[IA_farmboy]

I'd like to take a step back and ponder the benefits of concealed carry permits generally.

Here's a question to ponder, who benefits from having those that carry self defense weapons also have a license to carry them? In other words, how does the person that carries a self defense weapon benefit? In a world where the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution hold the benefit is minimal. When government agents cannot search citizens, take their property without cause, or compel one to incriminate themselves, the ability to enforce laws on licensing concealed carry, or even open carry to some extent, becomes very difficult.

I don't need the Second Amendment to argue that the licensing of carrying weapons is not constitutional. It helps but it is not required. Assuming that licensing of carrying weapons, openly or not, can be argued to be constitutional there is still the question of who benefits.

I can argue that criminals and politicians benefit, and people will say I just repeated myself. Both benefit as it allows an increased ability to control the law abiding public. It seems the most vocal people are those that disapprove of people carrying generally. These people want a barrier in increased cost to carry weapons even though those that carry that cost don't believe that they benefit at all. Perhaps there are people that view a benefit in having a license to carry but this is an artificial one, we have the right to bear arms but the law violates that right. The benefit for those that have a license is because they will not be punished by most or all the other groups because they have that license, the license itself does not grant the benefits.

Now the question I pose is how should the costs for these benefits be distributed? As it is now the costs are bore largely by one group, the licensed law abiding citizen, even though the benefits they gain are artificial. How could this disparity be rectified?

One solution is to make the licenses free. It can be argued that all benefit equally therefore all should pay equally through existing taxation mechanisms. I'm assuming the existing tax mechanisms meet some level of "fairness".

Another solution is to make the unarmed pay for it. If people want to disarm others with the law then they should pay for it. This is unworkable since those that want OTHERS disarmed do not necessarily want to disarm themselves. This is a system too easy to game.

The means by which everyone benefits, or conversely no one does, is if we do away with the permit system completely.

I'll bring this back to the issue with Utah. Utah created a licensing system that benefits themselves. They offer benefits to nonresidents with their widely recognized permits by creating a licensing system that is quite complex. This system maximizes income from these nonresidents so that residents do not have to carry the costs themselves through taxes or license fees. This system relies on other states being somewhat equally willing to violate the rights of their citizens, the rights against search, seizure, self incrimination, and to bear arms.

It appears that Utah felt a need to continue this system of violating the rights of residents and nonresidents by increasing the costs, inconvenience, and violations of liberty, by changing the rules on applying for a permit. This was brought on by other states changing their laws, both improving and further violating people's rights.

Utah, I hope you enjoy your cheap licenses to carry weapons now. It will likely be only a handful of years before the nonresident subsidies dry up and you will have to bear the whole cost of this system yourself. When that happens which path will you choose? Will you increase the costs on the armed? Will you increase the costs on the disarmed? Will you increase the costs for everyone? Or, will you do away with this artificial economy you created?

 

[IA_farmboy]

Minnesota has passed their omnibus firearm bill into law. As I understand the law it still puts recognition of permits to carry weapons in the hands of the "commissioner", I'm not sure what department this commissioner is in, I assume public safety or something similar. The law removes the word "substantially" from the state statutes so that permits from other states do not need to be "substantially similar" to the Minnesota permit but merely "similar". It seems many assume this means that all state permits will be recognized after this. We shall see after the annual review of state permits has been done, as required by law.


Reference:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...vernment-gun-grab-during-a-state-of-emergency

 

[utbagpiper]

I have little doubt in my mind that the powers that be did their own economic assessment. I suspect that they did the math on what the permits would cost if they lost the income of the large number of Texans by not changing the law versus keeping them by changing the law. Effectively non-residents are subsidizing the cost of the permit system in Utah for the residents. The powers that be had to know that if they applied a non-resident rule equally, as in all non-residents must prove the applicant has a resident permit from their state, that they'd also lose a lot of money from applications. So they come up with this complex system of what states an applicant resides determines whether or not they must have a resident permit first. They did this, again by my estimation, to both maximize revenue and allow for plausible deniability that it was solely as a reaction to threats from the powers that be in Texas.

You are quite wrong.

There was no "economic assessment". The only assessment was how many States were going to drop recognition of the Utah permit if we continued to allow residents of States that recognize a Utah permit to get a Utah permit without first getting a home State permit.

I will take full blame and credit for the idea of requiring residents of States that recognize a Utah permit to first get their home State permit. It was a pragmatic calculation to protect recognition of Utah permits.

The only economic assessment was on the part of States like Texas that were losing money on permits when their residents chose to get a Utah permit rather than a Texas permit. Texas lost money on permits. Their instructors lost money on teaching classes. And in the larger scope of things, RKBA in Texas (and other States) suffered because voting residents did not have a vested, personal interest in how costly or difficult their home State permits were to get, so long as their Utah permit was recognized.

We lost recognition from a couple of States over what I firmly believe to be this same issue. Texas was the first one honest enough to tell us what it was really about. I proposed the change as a safeguard against losing Texas or any other, similarly situated State. I don't care a bit whether residents of those States obtain a Utah permit. I care very much whether those who have Utah permits (especially Utah residents) can legally carry on their Utah permit in those States.

We've not lost recognition of any State since we made this change. The change in non-resident requirements has had the desired effect of protecting recognition of Utah permits.

Furthermore, while we could craft the fee structure such that non-residents subsidized resident permits, we haven't. As close as we can calculate costs, permits cost what it costs our State to process them. There are a few additional costs in processing non-resident permits. These are reflected in the fee schedule.

Now, if you or anyone else doesn't want a Utah permit for whatever reason, I really could not care any less. Frankly, issuing permits to non-residents has caused Utah RKBA activists far more work and grief than any benefit we could ever gain. We've done it because it was the right thing to do. At the present time, 300,000 non-residents enjoy the benefits of Utah permits compared with 200,000 Utah residents.

I do care very much if someone is mis-representing either our intentions, motivations, or the facts of our permit funding mechanisms.

I continue to correct your mis-statements in these regards. That you continue to mis-state facts and to make the worst possible assumptions about intentions when you have no knowledge of the intentions of those involved is starting to cause me to question you motives.

Honest mistakes are one thing. But at some point, after enough corrections, mis-statements are no longer honest mistakes, they are deliberate mis-representations.

Please stop that.

Charles

 

[IA_farmboy]

You are quite wrong.

<snip>

Honest mistakes are one thing. But at some point, after enough corrections, mis-statements are no longer honest mistakes, they are deliberate mis-representations.

Please stop that.

Charles

You have your opinion and I have mine. As neither of us can know for sure what lies in the hearts and minds of those that passed this bill we are both speculating, and I admit that I am speculating. What I know for sure is that the Utah legislature didn't seem to mind having an unequal application of the law, some citizens are "more equal" than others I guess. Iowans must show a resident permit while Californians do not? That doesn't sound like an equal application of the law to me.

If it was only about keeping the Utah permit as widely accepted for Utahans as possible then the law could have stated that ALL non-residents must have a permit from their home state before a Utah permit could be issued. But it wasn't about that, so they came up with this second class citizen rule. The only reason I can come up with for that rule is money, loss of permit income from states like Texas or California would certainly be felt in Utah BCI.

I'm not "misrepresenting" anything, I'm just giving my interpretation, my evaluation, my opinion, on what I believe led to this very awkward law from Utah.

Even if this was not about money it was certainly greedy of them to pass this second class citizen rule. These people wanted to keep permit recognition in Texas so bad that they were willing to violate some very basic rights of all Americans. Equal application of the law is just one of them. Having a permit system for the carry of weapons is another violation of our rights. I see that there is an effort in Utah to do away with the permit to carry weapons law, good for you and good for all Utahans.

I don't care if you believe I'm "misrepresenting" Utah law. You can't prove anything I say is untruthful because neither of us know what calculus the people that voted for this law had done. You can keep "correcting" me if you like, all that does is give me an excuse to make my case more often.

 

[IA_farmboy]

Oh, one more thing. You say you "question my motives" about these "misrepresentations" on the Utah permit system. I'll tell you what my motive is, I want Utah to apply the rules on applying for a permit equally to all applicants. That's it, I want to see equal application of the law. I would like to see this happen in all states but I feel like I've been insulted by the Utah government so they rank highly on my black list.

Perhaps it wasn't money that motivated this rule change but it was greed. Utahans didn't want to be inconvenienced to get another permit to visit Texas while armed so they made a change in their law so now all Utah non-resident permit applicants have to pay for it with their inconvenience.

 

[utbagpiper]

I'll tell you what my motive is, I want Utah to apply the rules on applying for a permit equally to all applicants. That's it, I want to see equal application of the law. I would like to see this happen in all states but I feel like I've been insulted by the Utah government so they rank highly on my black list.

I think that insult is coloring your response to Utah.

Perhaps it wasn't money that motivated this rule change but it was greed. Utahans didn't want to be inconvenienced to get another permit to visit Texas while armed so they made a change in their law so now all Utah non-resident permit applicants have to pay for it with their inconvenience.

Guilty (mostly) as charged. I see no reason for Utahns to lose value and convenience in their permit simply because other States are so greedy as to drop recognition of the Utah permit because some of their instructors are so greedy as to suggest residents get a Utah permit rather than a home State permit.

Frankly, and with all due respect, IA_farmboy has done NOTHING to help Utah get or keep its permit. Neither have the vast majority of the other >300,000 non-Utah-residents who hold a Utah permit and enjoy great advantage for doing so.

When it comes to the value and benefits of the Utah permit, my first obligation is to the Utah residents and voters who helped make the permit what it is today; those who have voted, written letters, made phone calls, volunteered on campaigns, served as party delegates, and otherwise encouraged our legislature and governors to do right by the permit process; to keep training minimal, to keep the costs low, and the processing time short, as well as recognizing all other States' permits and otherwise doing what we can (without creating additional infringements for Utahns) to have our permit widely recognized.

IA_farmboy did nothing to help our permit process become or remain good. And Utah did not benefit from IA_farmboy having a Utah permit. IA_farmboy benefited from having a Utah permit; Utah made that permit available without receiving any benefit in return; it was a gift from the gun owners, activists, and lobbyists in Utah to our brothers-in-arms nationwide.

When the permit became a victim of its own success, when the very reason 300,000 people--most of whom are unlikely to ever visit Utah, and who could carry in Utah on a permit from their home State--have a Utah permit is threatened, something has to be done. A Utah permit that is recognized in half as many States as it currently is, is far less valuable not only to Utahns but to most of those non-residents as well.

If a State recognizes a Utah permit, we don't want to have even the hint of appearance of undermining that State's ability to determine who in their State qualifies to carry. We don't want any hint of a reason for that State to stop recognizing a Utah permit. So we require applicants from those States to have a valid home-State permit in order to obtain a Utah permit.

Residents in States that don't recognize a Utah permit, can apply without needing a permit from their home-State.

We are applying the rules equally. States with different laws get treated differently.

The alternative, is to require all non-resident applicants to present a home-State permit. That would foreclose Utah permits to most residents of Cali, Illinois, NJ, and other discriminatory issue States that don't recognize a Utah permit.. And so we've avoided doing that. How telling that you'd rather see those folks denied a permit entirely just so you feel like you're all being treated exactly the same.


Charles