• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Utah doesn't want my money

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Laughable. ...

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 note that in the last few years, something like 6 new States have dropped laws requiring permits to carry firearms. Among these are Alaska and Arizona. Montana has done so for all areas outside incorporated cities IIR; something like 98% of the land area in the State.

Politics is the art of the possible. Twenty-years ago, constitutional carry was seen as a pipe dream. Today, it is gaining speed as a political possibility in a growing number of States.

Others may disagree, but I believe that in total, shall issue permits have helped move the pendulum toward greater respect for RKBA. They have certainly allowed a much larger number of people to legally carry guns for self-defense that could do so under discriminatory permits or no permits. There are also many who are uncomfortable with the peer pressure or risk of legal hassle if the openly carry and so are much more likely to carry if they can legally conceal. CC can be a personal stepping stone toward OC for some. They can get comfortable and confident carrying a gun when no one knows they are carrying and sometimes come to decide they also want to OC. Those with permits tend to be opposed to increased off limits locations or other new restrictions on purchase or possession. They tend to oppose laws mandating expensive storage, or imposing unjust liability, or requiring a duty to retreat. Even if they never support OC or permit-free carry, they are allies in 90% of what all gun carriers need from legislators.

Recognizing permits issued by other States, eliminating off limits locations, and enforcing strong State preemption against localized pockets of anti-self-defense sentiments are social stepping stones toward greater legal respect for RKBA. Ditto for reducing training requirements, lowering costs, or otherwise making permits easier for LACs to obtain.

Charles
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
You must live in an amazingly free place if this is the battle you are picking.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
Or, some folks are incapable of thinking more deeply than in bumper sticker sound bites.
You tell me that the law is being applied equally but states are being treated differently as they have different laws. Tell me, who is applying for these permits? Is it the state or the person? It's the person applying for the permit but the rules they have to follow is dependent on which state they live in. Which tells me that based on zip code the state of Utah determines if a person should be required to undergo one or two background checks to carry a concealed weapon within a state that recognizes the Utah permit. It's not about carry in Utah, I come back to that later.

People from Vermont must be inherently more trustworthy because they only need to get a single permit, like the trustworthy residents of Utah. Us Iowans though, we can't be trusted by Utah to carry a weapon in another state unless we first get permission from Iowa and from Utah.

You claim everyone is being treated equally here? You have an interesting definition of "equal".

utbagpiper said:
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.
You speak as if Utah was forced to require resident permits before getting a Utah non-resident permit. I believe that residents and non-residents should be treated exactly the same, or at least all non-residents should be treated the same.

I just realized something, don't know why I didn't check on this before, Utah recognizes permits from every state. The only reason a person in a shall issue state would get a Utah permit is to carry in a state other than Utah or their home state (assuming Texas followed through on their threat). Utah can't claim that this is for the benefit those that choose to visit Utah. It wasn't for the benefit of Texans, although the Texas government did benefit through their own permit revenue. Benefits to Utahans is questionable since to get to Texas from Utah one would almost always have to pass through New Mexico, meaning having to get a non-resident permit anyway.

Utah passed this law because non-residents were getting Utah permits to carry in the state they resided, and the states reacted by dropping recognition. Utah had several options on how to react. They choose this unequal application of the law. What Utah could have done is stop issuing non-resident permits, or cease issuing them by mail, or suck it up and see if Texas followed through on their threat. I'm sure someone might ask, "What of a person that wants to carry in Utah, how can they get a permit before they leave if non-residents can't get a permit in the mail?" The same thing a traveler would to visit a state like Missouri, people can get their permits from Florida, Arizona, or some other state.

Utah didn't take any of those other options that would treat all non-residents the same, having chosen an unequal application of the law. Why did they choose this path? I get back to the same answer I have before, they didn't want to see revenue from 300,000 non-resident permit holders disappear.

Charles, the more you bring this up the more I look into it. The more I look into it the more evidence I find to make my case. Utah BCI customers are non-residents, so they create a product that non-residents want. I see the game they are playing and I don't want to play any more. This is not about keeping Utah safe, it's about funding their department. You should feel insulted too, I'd wager the fingerprint requirement came about when they found out they could get more non-residents to buy if the permit allowed carry in states that required collecting fingerprints for recognition.

I know who's team I'm on, do you?
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
You tell me that the law is being applied equally but states are being treated differently as they have different laws. Tell me, who is applying for these permits? Is it the state or the person? It's the person applying for the permit but the rules they have to follow is dependent on which state they live in.
The difference is dependent on how the person's acquisition of the Utah permit can affect acceptance of the Utah permit.

Besides, who makes the laws in the States? The State itself or the people of the State and their duly elected representatives?


You speak as if Utah was forced to require resident permits before getting a Utah non-resident permit. I believe that residents and non-residents should be treated exactly the same, or at least all non-residents should be treated the same.
And I believe that having different rules based on objective differences in facts is entirely appropriate. Turns out I and other Utah voters have more sway with Utah lawmakers than you do.

I just realized something, don't know why I didn't check on this before, Utah recognizes permits from every state. The only reason a person in a shall issue state would get a Utah permit is to carry in a state other than Utah or their home state (assuming Texas followed through on their threat).
You just "realized" this? Have you not been reading my posts? I made this quite clear in my first post on this thread, #10.

Utah can't claim that this is for the benefit those that choose to visit Utah. It wasn't for the benefit of Texans, although the Texas government did benefit through their own permit revenue. Benefits to Utahans is questionable since to get to Texas from Utah one would almost always have to pass through New Mexico, meaning having to get a non-resident permit anyway.

Utah passed this law because non-residents were getting Utah permits to carry in the state they resided, and the states reacted by dropping recognition.
Utah never made this claim and I explained all this in post #19.



Utah had several options on how to react. They choose this unequal application of the law. What Utah could have done is stop issuing non-resident permits, or cease issuing them by mail, or suck it up and see if Texas followed through on their threat.
Other than your obsession with "unequal application of the law" all true. The gun grabbers would have happily stopped issuing non-resident permits. Some pro-gun folks suggested we stop allowing non-residents teach our classes. Others suggested we require everyone who wants a permit to come to Utah to take the class and apply for the permit.

We decided all of these options imposed much higher burdens on our brothers-with-arms than did requiring those in States that recognize a Utah permit to first get their home-State permit.

Waiting to lose recognition from Texas was not on the table. We have no interest in needlessly losing recognition either for anyone who holds a Utah permit. The entire Utah non-resident permit is of benefit to non-Utahns primarily because of the widespread recognition of the permit. Losing recognition is not much different than just cutting off the issuance of non-resident permits.

Again, I find it quite telling you'd rather have all non-Utah-residents lose access to the very practical Utah permit, or lose recognition in some very large States, rather than have some non-residents have a small extra requirement to protect recognition. Whose team are you on?

Why did they choose this path? I get back to the same answer I have before, they didn't want to see revenue from 300,000 non-resident permit holders disappear.
No. We chose to impose an additional requirement on residents of States that recognize a Utah permit for the reasons I explained above and in posts 19 and 22. As noted in posts 10 and 19, Utah has never benefited economically from issuing non-resident permits.

Charles, the more you bring this up the more I look into it. The more I look into it the more evidence I find to make my case.
Research is good. I wish you'd just start by actually reading and comprehending what I've posted. The only things we disagree on after all your "looking into it" is whether Utah's law constitutes "unequal treatment" and whether Utah has any economic benefit. Our disagreement over unequal treatment is a semantics debate. But economic benefit is factual based. How much did Utah BCI take in from non-resident permits and how much did it spend to administer the program? The answer to that question is that within the ability of government to track income and expenses, those two figures line up nearly exactly. As I said in post 10, the only material benefit to Utah is a few clerks at BCI who have jobs processing non-resident permits who otherwise would not have those jobs.

You should feel insulted too, I'd wager the fingerprint requirement came about when they found out they could get more non-residents to buy if the permit allowed carry in states that required collecting fingerprints for recognition.
I take that wager in any amount you're willing to pay. The fingerprint requirement goes back at least as far as 1995 when we adopted non-discriminatory, shall issue permits. It was a necessary component to win passage as the fingerprints allow an FBI check for (some) criminal conduct not yet convicted in court.

I know who's team I'm on, do you?
The one that values reading comprehension over tinfoil hats.

What about you?

Look, you got this right with your title. Utah doesn't want your money. Drop the permit. Please. I'd just as soon you not ever be associated with the Utah permit in any way.

The 300,000 and growing non-residents who have Utah permits clearly find value in them even among those who have to send a photocopy of their homeState permit as part of the application. Utah gains nothing directly from those non-resident permit holders except as they may exert any influence in other States to maintain or adopt recognition of the Utah permit. Utah gun owners and legislators have maintained the issuance of permits to non-residents because we believe it is the right thing to do. It is second in priority only to protecting the value of the permit for Utah residents.

And lest anyone accuse me wrongly, I will say again that I do not believe any permit should be required to carry a gun in self defense anywhere Old Glory flies. I am doing my small part to advance toward that goal. Until we can achieve it, permits provide a politically pragmatic way for decent men to defend themselves without running afoul of (unconstitutional) laws.

Charles
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
The difference is dependent on how the person's acquisition of the Utah permit can affect acceptance of the Utah permit.
I'm not even sure that sentence makes sense, or even if it means what you think it means.

Besides, who makes the laws in the States? The State itself or the people of the State and their duly elected representatives?
People will tend to act in their own self benefit, it's human nature. I'd hope elected officials would have the mettle to act true to the Constitution than to grow the size of government.

And I believe that having different rules based on objective differences in facts is entirely appropriate. Turns out I and other Utah voters have more sway with Utah lawmakers than you do.
Are you sure of that? Seems like your elected representatives listened to the government of Texas more than their own citizens.

You just "realized" this? Have you not been reading my posts? I made this quite clear in my first post on this thread, #10.
I just put a few more pieces together in my mind to see the bigger picture in the puzzle. It looks like your representatives are acting in ways to defend the revenue from the permits than defending the rights of their constituents. I see that permitless carry is popular in Utah, why has that not passed yet?


Utah never made this claim and I explained all this in post #19.
Yes, you did explain it. I believe your explanation to be flawed. Utah got greedy. They wanted their revenue and their recognition. Trying to keep their cake and eat it too they had to come up with a compromise that violates some very basic tenets in law.

Other than your obsession with "unequal application of the law" all true. The gun grabbers would have happily stopped issuing non-resident permits. Some pro-gun folks suggested we stop allowing non-residents teach our classes. Others suggested we require everyone who wants a permit to come to Utah to take the class and apply for the permit.

We decided all of these options imposed much higher burdens on our brothers-with-arms than did requiring those in States that recognize a Utah permit to first get their home-State permit.
You could have chosen permitless carry.

Why does Utah care so much about non-resident licenses? These people don't vote. Few of them are likely to ever set foot in Utah. Utah already recognizes permits from every state. The number of Utahans that travel to Texas armed, and don't already have permits from another state, must be exceedingly small. Why go through such great lengths to preserve recognition?

Because money.

You want to piss off the gun grabbers? Pass permitless carry. You want to maximize recognition of the Utah permit for Utahans? Then issue only resident permits. Utah chose the path that maximized BCI revenue while doing little to nothing to increase freedom.

Waiting to lose recognition from Texas was not on the table. We have no interest in needlessly losing recognition either for anyone who holds a Utah permit. The entire Utah non-resident permit is of benefit to non-Utahns primarily because of the widespread recognition of the permit. Losing recognition is not much different than just cutting off the issuance of non-resident permits.
So you admit that BCI works for non-residents, not residents.

Again, I find it quite telling you'd rather have all non-Utah-residents lose access to the very practical Utah permit, or lose recognition in some very large States, rather than have some non-residents have a small extra requirement to protect recognition. Whose team are you on?
I expect Utah to act for the benefit of Utahans, if that also benefits non-residents then all the better. Utah chose a path that benefited non-residents much more that residents telling me that some of your elected officials forgot who they serve.

No. We chose to impose an additional requirement on residents of States that recognize a Utah permit for the reasons I explained above and in posts 19 and 22. As noted in posts 10 and 19, Utah has never benefited economically from issuing non-resident permits.
You keep saying that but repeating yourself is not going to make it true.

Research is good. I wish you'd just start by actually reading and comprehending what I've posted. The only things we disagree on after all your "looking into it" is whether Utah's law constitutes "unequal treatment" and whether Utah has any economic benefit. Our disagreement over unequal treatment is a semantics debate. But economic benefit is factual based. How much did Utah BCI take in from non-resident permits and how much did it spend to administer the program? The answer to that question is that within the ability of government to track income and expenses, those two figures line up nearly exactly. As I said in post 10, the only material benefit to Utah is a few clerks at BCI who have jobs processing non-resident permits who otherwise would not have those jobs.
And how many of them have uncles in elected office? Just curious.

The one that values reading comprehension over tinfoil hats.

What about you?
I took an oath to defend the US Constitution. If you and I are to agree that permits to carry are a fact of life, a necessary evil on the path to a greater good, then perhaps we should also agree that justice should be blind. No lifting the blindfold to see where an applicant resides.

Look, you got this right with your title. Utah doesn't want your money. Drop the permit. Please. I'd just as soon you not ever be associated with the Utah permit in any way.
I'm not so sure I got the title right any more. They want my money but they forgot why I was their customer.

The 300,000 and growing non-residents who have Utah permits clearly find value in them even among those who have to send a photocopy of their homeState permit as part of the application. Utah gains nothing directly from those non-resident permit holders except as they may exert any influence in other States to maintain or adopt recognition of the Utah permit. Utah gun owners and legislators have maintained the issuance of permits to non-residents because we believe it is the right thing to do. It is second in priority only to protecting the value of the permit for Utah residents.
Yep, money first, rights second.

And lest anyone accuse me wrongly, I will say again that I do not believe any permit should be required to carry a gun in self defense anywhere Old Glory flies. I am doing my small part to advance toward that goal. Until we can achieve it, permits provide a politically pragmatic way for decent men to defend themselves without running afoul of (unconstitutional) laws.

Charles
In defending the Second Amendment it appears that you've blinded yourself to the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I think the people of Utah got so caught up in keeping permit recognition in Texas that they didn't bother to think about what effect that a change in the law might have on the rest of their rights. Did you consider that perhaps changing the law wasn't worth keeping recognition in Texas?

You keep asking me if I'd rather the gun grabbers win. Did you consider the possibility that by changing Utah law as you did that you didn't hand them a victory? You claim victory but I think you lost. You lost your path. You lost a piece of your soul. And you lost me as a customer.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I'm not even sure that sentence makes sense, or even if it means what you think it means.
Not going to debate the issue of "equal treatment" further with you.

Are you sure of that? Seems like your elected representatives listened to the government of Texas more than their own citizens.
Texas didn't care what we did. They had their solution in hand to protect their revenue stream. We encouraged our reps to act in a way that eliminated the motivation for Texas and other States to drop recognition of the Utah permit.

I see that permitless carry is popular in Utah, why has that not passed yet?
It has passed our legislature. Gov vetoed. We'll need to make a change in our governor here soon or otherwise persuade him to change his ways.


Yes, you did explain it. I believe your explanation to be flawed. Utah got greedy. They wanted their revenue and their recognition. Trying to keep their cake and eat it too they had to come up with a compromise that violates some very basic tenets in law.
As explained repeatedly, non-res permits do nothing to benefit Utah revenue.

Yes, we wanted to maintain recognition.

You are misapplying that very basic tenet of law. Or, if you are convinced you are correct, you could sue and get laughed out of court.

You could have chosen permitless carry.
I'd love to. Politics, art of the possible. We're not quite there yet. Still working it. But, you've already conceded that a non-res permit does nothing to benefit non-residents visiting Utah from shall issue permits. When we go constitutional carry, we'll keep the permit for recognition, federal GFSZs, etc.

Why does Utah care so much about non-resident licenses?
Pro-RKBA Utahns care because it is the right thing to do. Period.

The number of Utahans that travel to Texas armed, and don't already have permits from another state, must be exceedingly small. Why go through such great lengths to preserve recognition?
Because getting additional permits is expensive, time consuming and a hassle.

Because money.
Got any citations to back up that tin foil hat claim?

Go look over Utah's budget numbers, including BCI's budget. Show me where Utah is making money off non-res permits beyond employing a few clerks at BCI to process the permits.

So you admit that BCI works for non-residents, not residents.
I admit no such thing. But if that is what you take from my comments, it is clear your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills need some serious help.

I expect Utah to act for the benefit of Utahans, if that also benefits non-residents then all the better. Utah chose a path that benefited non-residents much more that residents telling me that some of your elected officials forgot who they serve.
Our path did nothing to harm residents. We took the path that preserved recognition while imposing the lowest burden possible on our fellow gun owners in other States. Do you not understand that?

You keep saying that but repeating yourself is not going to make it true.
Then go dig up the numbers to show me I'm wrong because your paranoid delusions about Utah profiting off non-res permits, or me lying or being wrong on this point doesn't make you correct either.

I'm not so sure I got the title right any more. They want my money but they forgot why I was their customer.
On behalf of Utah let me assure you that "we" no longer want your money nor any association with you at all. Go in peace.

In defending the Second Amendment it appears that you've blinded yourself to the rest of the Bill of Rights.
That is a slur and a lie. Citation to any portion of the BoR I don't support.

And you lost me as a customer.
Sounds like a win-win at this point. Enjoy not having a Utah permit.

Charles
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
]You are misapplying that very basic tenet of law. Or, if you are convinced you are correct, you could sue and get laughed out of court.
It would be interesting to see this tried in court but there's a problem with that. Only a citizen of a state has standing to sue a state government.

Pro-RKBA Utahns care because it is the right thing to do. Period.
Was it? This is how I see it. The gun grabbers in Texas are seeing money and control over their citizens being diverted away from them because of how Texas law was written. Gun grabbers in Utah are seeing people buy their permits. Texas gun grabbers talk to the Utah gun grabbers and they make a deal. If they can get Utah to change their laws then the Texas gun grabbers don't have to look like the bad guys. Utah gun grabbers spread the word on how Texas might drop Utah recognition and get the 2A crowd all worked up. Utah passes the law requiring non-residents to prove they have a resident permit before a Utah permit is issued. Utahans get to blame Texas. Texans get to blame Utah. All of you that lobbied for this bill get to pat each other on the back. Then the gun grabbers all over the country get to laugh in their sleeves at your expense.

You got played.

Florida did nothing and their permits are still valid in Texas. Arizona did nothing and their permits are valid in Texas. Texas was bluffing, or so it seems. What if they weren't? You all still could take the high road. You could make a statement, something like:

"Those of us in Utah defending the right to keep and bear arms will not be bullied to infringe on the rights of those that wish to obtain a permit to carry weapons from the state of Utah. It is Texas law that is supposedly flawed, not Utah law. The citizens of Texas are following the letter of the law so that they may exercise their right of self defense, and do so with the least expense. We can only hope that Texas chooses to allow Texans greater liberty rather than infringe on the rights of the citizens of Utah and of the United States of America."

If Texas dropped Utah permit recognition then you would still look like the good guys and made Texas the bad guys.

Texas made a threat, most likely an empty threat, to drop recognition and you flinched. Had Texas gone through with their threat then you'd have Utah permit holders mad at Texas, not you. Why should I get mad at Utah because Texas dropped recognition? You would not have done anything wrong by keeping your laws as they were. It was Texas with the supposedly broken laws, make them fix theirs.

You probably still think you did the right thing. That's too bad. In my mind you were made the fall guy. They tugged your strings and now you look like the fool.
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
As I'm having a bit of insomnia I thought I'd spend some time to address some points I didn't have the time to do so earlier.

Not going to debate the issue of "equal treatment" further with you.
That's fine, you don't have to reply. That doesn't mean I won't continue arguing the point. I do suspect that you will feel compelled to debate me now that I did some research to put some "legalese" to my argument.

Texas didn't care what we did. They had their solution in hand to protect their revenue stream. We encouraged our reps to act in a way that eliminated the motivation for Texas and other States to drop recognition of the Utah permit.
Evidently Texas did care what Utah did. They threatened you to change your laws or they would drop recognition of Utah carry permits. Now that Utah closed the "Utah loophole" so that Texas didn't have to do it on their own. If Texas dropped recognition anyway then you might be able to make that argument.

As explained repeatedly, non-res permits do nothing to benefit Utah revenue.

Yes, we wanted to maintain recognition.

You are misapplying that very basic tenet of law. Or, if you are convinced you are correct, you could sue and get laughed out of court.
First a disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, just someone that reads a lot. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get laughed out of court. The US Constitution bars citizens from suing a state government unless they are a citizens of that state. As I am not a Utah resident it would be quite difficult, I'd never get to court. Assuming I could get this challenged in court I would expect that an experienced lawyer would not be laughed out of court. A law that does not treat all citizens equally is unconstitutional, we've been through this before with "separate but equal" and many other cases.

I'd love to. Politics, art of the possible. We're not quite there yet. Still working it. But, you've already conceded that a non-res permit does nothing to benefit non-residents visiting Utah from shall issue permits. When we go constitutional carry, we'll keep the permit for recognition, federal GFSZs, etc.
There were a number of options available and possible to address the problem SB 36 was supposed to solve. A solution that other states have done is implement a two tiered license system. For example have one type of license that didn't require a resident permit and another that did. I mentioned some other options in previous posts. You chose poorly.

Pro-RKBA Utahns care because it is the right thing to do. Period.
Yep, the right thing to do is treat some applicants like second class citizens.

Because getting additional permits is expensive, time consuming and a hassle.
Right, so Utah made it mandatory that those in permitless carry states must apply for a resident permit before they can get one from Utah. It seems SB 36 fails on this.

Got any citations to back up that tin foil hat claim?

Go look over Utah's budget numbers, including BCI's budget. Show me where Utah is making money off non-res permits beyond employing a few clerks at BCI to process the permits.
Employing a few clerks at BCI is profiting. Those people make money, don't they? Don't you think it possible that they might contribute money to the re-election campaign for those that voted in favor of SB 36? You think that wealthy and politically active people like Bloomberg might also contribute for passing a law making it more expensive and difficult to get a permit to carry weapons?

Our path did nothing to harm residents. We took the path that preserved recognition while imposing the lowest burden possible on our fellow gun owners in other States. Do you not understand that?
The lowest burden possible would be to leave open the path to obtain and renew permits without submitting a photocopy of their resident permit. Doing nothing would have kept the burden as it was, so would having a two tiered permit system.

Then go dig up the numbers to show me I'm wrong because your paranoid delusions about Utah profiting off non-res permits, or me lying or being wrong on this point doesn't make you correct either.
There are other ways to derive profit from such a system than just by the fees. There are ways to profit that don't involve money. Utah got greedy.

That is a slur and a lie. Citation to any portion of the BoR I don't support.
The Fifth Amendment, which was made to explicitly apply to the states and clarified by the Fourteenth Amendment. SB 36 violates due process by having one person have to meet different requirements for a license than another person. Due process means that all people are equal under the law, state of residence is an arbitrary condition that has nothing to do with being able to safely handle a firearm.

After thinking this over some more I found the words I was looking for, words like "rational basis", "due process", and "arbitrary and capricious". I also found the bill identifier again, SB 36.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Employing a few clerks at BCI is profiting.
...
There are other ways to derive profit from such a system than just by the fees. There are ways to profit that don't involve money. Utah got greedy.
Your overly "creative" use of words like "profiting" and "greedy" belie the lack of serious material in all of your criticisms in this thread.

I specifically conceded, from the get-go, that non-res permits resulted in a few clerks employed to process applications. For you to circle back and try to claim that constitutes the State "profiting" is beyond silly. If you are going to claim there are ways to "profit that don't involve money" and then claim "Utah got greedy", you need to at least provide a possible example or two.

Bottom line, you are either incapable or unwilling to dig through Utah's budget numbers to refute my assertion that Utah does not materially profit off non-resident permits. Rather than just concede that, you are trying to prolong an argument.

It is clear that you'd have been far happier for Utah to have dropped all issuance of non-resident permits (the position favored by gun grabbers in Utah, I might add), than to have residents of some States treated differently than residents of other States. I believe that falls squarely into the realm of a "foolish consistency" that is the "hobgoblin of small minds".

I'm no longer interested in "mud-wrestling with pigs" (as it were).

Utah permit doesn't meet your needs, peace. Go in peace, but for the love of peace, please just go and leave this be. We in Utah believe the current handling of resident and non-resident permits is about right way to handle permits. We are working on other issues and the ~300,000 non-residents with Utah permits tend to suggest your view is a curious minority, nothing more.

Good evening.

Charles
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
I'm no longer interested in "mud-wrestling with pigs" (as it were).
You've stated that several times now and yet you keep replying to this thread. All that does is give me an opportunity to reply and bump this thread back to the top.

I see that Minnesota has dropped the Utah permit under their new reciprocity law. That gives me a bit of schadenfreude. Utah has worked so hard to keep their permit relevant for non-resident gun owners and yet that relevance is slipping from them. I believe that Utah needs to focus on providing permits for Utahans rather than trying to please everyone everywhere. Think about what that would mean for residents. What makes the Utah permit so widely recognized is also what limits its usefulness to residents. For example, the minimum age for Utah permit holders is 21 years, if it were 18 years then that would mean a handful of states would stop recognizing it.

How about it, Charles? Would you lobby for concealed carry at 18 years of age even if that meant a handful of states would no longer recognize the Utah permit? That would likely include Texas by the way. Perhaps your own privilege of carrying in Texas without having the inconvenience of needing another permit prevents you from fighting for the rights of fellow Utahans to carry tools of self defense in your own state.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
You've stated that several times now and yet you keep replying to this thread. All that does is give me an opportunity to reply and bump this thread back to the top.
"...you realize the pig enjoys getting dirty."

I see that Minnesota has dropped the Utah permit under their new reciprocity law. That gives me a bit of schadenfreude.
So a loss of ability to carry a self-defense firearms brings you joy? You are clearly more concerned about personality and petty grudges than about principle. I think that speaks volumes about your character...none of it good. Which means despite any bump in the thread, I don't care to mud wrestle further beyond pointing out how very petty, and contrary to principles support for RKBA or even just the practical legal ability to carry a self-defense firearm your views are.

Charles
 

IA_farmboy

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
494
Location
Linn County, Iowa, USA
So a loss of ability to carry a self-defense firearms brings you joy?
No, it doesn't. I believe that you know better but decided it might be fun to push my buttons. Just in case you, or someone else reading this, missed my point above I'll repeat myself. What gives me the half joy in this is that Utah has worked so hard to keep their permit recognized as widely as possible, going so far as to create second class citizens of a large portion of their applicants to keep it that way, but yet they lost on this instance. It is of course inconvenient for those that obtained a permit from Utah so that they may lawfully carry a tool of self defense while in Minnesota but their rights were no more denied now than they were before, they still need to obtain a permit. What differs now is where they must go to get that permit.

You are clearly more concerned about personality and petty grudges than about principle. I think that speaks volumes about your character...none of it good.
My "grudge" against Utah is no more than any other state that requires permits. What makes Utah unique is that while other states are making it easier to get permits, and reducing permit requirements and fees, Utah decided to do the opposite. The Utah permit change only came to my attention because it affected me personally. Had Florida done something similar then there would be a thread about that here instead. I don't expect Florida to do such a thing because they don't serve non-residents like Utah does, they know that it's residents that pay the bills.

I'd like to see Utah treat all applicants equally, like it did before. If that means a loss of recognition in a handful of states then so be it, equality under the law should be of greater importance. Of all the different ways Utah could have chosen to address this issue they chose poorly. They could have created a tiered system like North Dakota had done for example.

What I prefer that Utah do is do away with the permit requirement completely. Should they choose to recognize the rights of all to defend themselves without requiring government permission then expect me to congratulate all for doing so. Instead I expect that Utah will require range time for future permits. Again, that's not what I want but what I expect. The Utah permit has created a multimillion dollar industry, which no doubt feeds some of that money into political contributions in the state. There is a positive feedback loop here where the more money that the Utah permit makes for the state, trainers, and others, the harder it will be to get rid of it.

There are two ways that states can short circuit this feedback loop. First is do what Minnesota has done and arbitrarily drop recognition of the Utah permit. (A side note, someone has pointed out that Utah never did met the Minnesota requirements for recognition and it is entirely possible that recognition would have been lost even if the law had not changed.) The second way to short circuit this feedback is states adopting permitless carry. I prefer that states adopt permitless carry. The only reason I got any kind of joy out of Utah's permit requirement change is that it saved me some money, had I not been upset about the Utah law then I'd have given them money for renewal only to see the permit become worthless with the law change in Minnesota. I expect other Iowans to do the same math I did and come the same result.

Which means despite any bump in the thread, I don't care to mud wrestle further beyond pointing out how very petty, and contrary to principles support for RKBA or even just the practical legal ability to carry a self-defense firearm your views are.

Charles
Yes, you've said that before.
 
Top