Utah H.B. 76: Concealed Weapon Carry Amendments

[RustyShackleford]

This reminds me of a joke I heard on another site...

How do you tell that football coaches aren't gun right advocates (or libertarians)?

If they were, every play would be a Hail Mary.

Seriously though, so maybe this isn't a touchdown anymore, but its still a first down. We are still making progress, and any progress is good. It just makes it that much easier to pass true constitutional carry next time.

Maybe, but remember Colorado was one step ahead of us with allowing OC fully loaded without a permit...and Now look at them. they are becoming California...with out a beach.

[Ruminus]

HB76S01 is in the Senate Rules Committee as of 3/5/13 if anyone hadn't seen that yet. Passed the House 51-18-6.

[lawiscontract]

Fiscal Note - State of Utah - 2013 General Session
http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/static/HB0076.html

HB0076S01 - Concealed Weapon Carry Amendments

State Government (UCA 36-12-13(2)(b)):
Enactment of this bill may reduce the total amount of dedicated credit and other fee revenue and associated costs for concealed weapons permits to the Department of Public Safety - Bureau of Criminal Identification program due to fewer Utah citizen applications; however the amount is unknown at this time. Total estimated fee revenue ($46/application) relating to provisions in this bill for Utah citizen applicants totaled about $932,000. Total estimated costs ($30/application) were about $602,000. To the extent that fewer Utah citizens apply for concealed weapons permits, the Department of Public Safety will have a net revenue loss of about $16 per application.

Local Governments (UCA 36-12-13(2)(c)):
Enactment of this bill likely will not result in direct, measurable costs for local governments.

Direct Expenditures by Utah Residents and Businesses (UCA 36-12-13(2)(d)):
To the extent that expected applicants no longer apply for a concealed weapons permit as a result of this bill, they will save $46 per application.

Performance Note Required? (Joint Rule 4-2-404): No
3/6/2013, 10:24:59 AM, Lead Analyst: Syphus, G./Attny: ECM

[DaKnife]

Applications might drop, but not much as people I talk to seem to recognize that the Permit still has a couple very valid uses.

[Jesse 8]

I don't know, but if current law stands, public transit is still off limits along with schools. There's reason enough to get a permit.

[sigmanluke]

Reciprocity is another BIG reason to get the permit. I honestly doubt they'll lose much money, there are too many who WANT the permit, even if they don't NEED it.

[bagpiper]

Permit applications fees are as close to neutral as we've been able to determine.

So IF the number of applications and renewals dropped (a big IF I think), the only repercussion is that work load for processing permits would drop right along with the reduction in income.

Translation: The number of people needed to process permits might decline to the point that a reduction in workforce would be needed at BCI.

Admittedly, that is personally unpleasant for whomever is doing the work that no longer needs to be done. But from the State's (and taxpayers') perspectives, it is a wash.

Charles

[RustyShackleford]

Reciprocity is another BIG reason to get the permit. I honestly doubt they'll lose much money, there are too many who WANT the permit, even if they don't NEED it.

I would love to see an enhanced UT permit that would (maybe*) qualify us to carry in other states that require a certain level of training, such as Nevada. There should not be any additional cost for the state because it would be the same paperwork but just an extra line for an "approved instructor" to sign off that you have had X-amount of live fire instruction. I would not mind paying an Instructor for the training.

*I say maybe. Because I think the real reason for non-reciprocity is money lost by those other states and/or anti-gun legislators in the other states not feeling they will lose any votes, since we are not in their constituency (but still limit guns), has nothing to do with safety.

[D-FIN]

I agree, I think you should take the regular course and get your permit then go through and approved training program by an approved instructor on your own dime and they sign it off and submit it for the enhanced status.

[wellsboy]

If Utah HB 76 passes, even in its current form, I still see it as a step in the right direction as others have indicated. Additionally, I think it would get my wife to carry concealed, Utah unloaded. She has been hesitant to get her permit, but I think if she starts carrying she will quickly decide she's better off carrying loaded, and will then have the desire to get busy and take the class and apply for her permit. Or maybe I just HOPE she'll see it that way...

[sigmanluke]

Reciprocity is another BIG reason to get the permit. I honestly doubt they'll lose much money, there are too many who WANT the permit, even if they don't NEED it.

I would love to see an enhanced UT permit that would (maybe*) qualify us to carry in other states that require a certain level of training, such as Nevada. There should not be any additional cost for the state because it would be the same paperwork but just an extra line for an "approved instructor" to sign off that you have had X-amount of live fire instruction. I would not mind paying an Instructor for the training.

*I say maybe. Because I think the real reason for non-reciprocity is money lost by those other states and/or anti-gun legislators in the other states not feeling they will lose any votes, since we are not in their constituency (but still limit guns), has nothing to do with safety.

Don't know if that's realistic, but it's a fantastic idea.....It would only be worth it (to me) if the states who dropped us would agree to honor those "enhanced permits" before hand.

[bagpiper]

Tonight, KSL is reporting that several groups are asking the governor to veto H.B. 76 if it makes it to his desk.

I suggest three things:

1-Call the governor and politely voice your support for H.B. 76.
Phone: 801-538-1000
Toll Free: 800-705-2464

2-Email and call your own senator and ask his support for H.B. 76.
The Utah Senate Roster with contact information can be found at this page.

3-Email and call the Speaker Lockhart and members of the House Rules committee (and your own Representative if not on the rules committee) and ask them to prioritize H.B. 76 on the Senate calendar.
The members of the House Rules committee are:
Rep. Dean Sanpei, Chair
Rep. Derek E. Brown, Vice Chair
Rep. Eric K. Hutchings
Rep. Ken Ivory
Rep. Brian S. King
Rep. John G. Mathis
Rep. Curtis Oda
Rep. Lee B. Perry
Rep. Val L. Peterson
Rep. Paul Ray
Rep. Larry B. Wiley
Full contact info at the House Roster page.

From the KSL article, those organizations asking for the veto of our RKBA:

Miriam Walkingshaw, founder of Utah Parents Against Gun Violence, said lawmakers should be looking at strengthening the current concealed weapons permitting process rather than making it optional.

...

Also signing the letter were Alliance for a Better UTAH, League of Women Voters of Utah, Utah Rape Recovery Center, American Association of University Women, Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, and Gun Sense, a new interdenominational group.

Also from the article:

The bill has been held in the Senate since passing the House on March 1. House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, said Monday while the bill may be put on the House priority list for Senate passage, "we're not going to direct the Senate what to do."

Lockhart said the argument that rural Utahns shouldn't have to obtain a permit to put on a jacket while openly carrying a weapon resonated with her.

Charles

[Sam Fidler]

This just passed the Senate with a veto proof majority.

[UtahJarhead]

This just passed the Senate with a veto proof majority.

!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jesse 8]

that's awesome! Good work guys n gals!