Utah Guns Forum banner

Utah H.B. 76: Concealed Weapon Carry Amendments

30K views 209 replies 68 participants last post by  Sam Fidler 
#1 ·
#77 ·
Gov. Gary Herbert says he doesn't like 'constitutional carry' bill
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 ... -bill.html

SALT LAKE CITY - Gov. Gary Herbert said Thursday he's not happy with the so-called "constitutional carry" bill that would allow gun owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit and repeated his belief that new gun laws aren't needed this session.

"I think the laws we have on the books right now protect our Second Amendment rights," the governor told reporters. He said met with the sponsor of HB76, Rep. John Mathis, R-Vernal, and expressed his displeasure.


But Herbert also said he agreed with the reason Mathis gave for coming up with the bill - to prevent a repeat of an incident where a hunter was stopped by a fish and game warden for having a gun beneath a jacket without a concealed weapons permit.

"(Mathis) doesn't think that's right, and he's correct. That isn't right. (The hunter) shouldn't have been hassled," the governor said. "That being said, I've given (Mathis) some suggestion that's probably something I'm not too pleased with in its present form."

Herbert said he made it clear he wants the bill to be limited only to that type of situation in rural areas. An attempt to amend the bill to affect only the state's smaller counties failed in the House on Tuesday, and the bill was circled, or put on hold.

"I think that's an area that ought to be explored," the governor said. He stopped short of saying what changes would need to be made to avoid a veto, but said Mathis is considering his concerns.

Mathis had little to say about what he might do as a result of his meeting with Herbert.

"We had a good discussion," he said, declining to answer questions. "He's a great man, and I respect his opinion."

The governor has already announced his "guiding principles" in evaluating gun-related legislation, asking lawmakers to keep their emotions in check as they respond to President Barack Obama's call for more gun control.

Also Thursday, a bill aimed at giving law enforcement more authority over gun owners who walk through malls and other public places with guns on their hips or slung over their shoulders was approved by the House 54-12 and now goes to the Senate.

Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield, sponsor of HB268, said if the bill had been law during last week's so-called "Gun Day" at the Legislature, a man who brandished an assault rifle next to a child at a committee hearing could have been cited.

"This is a disorderly conduct bill. This bill is not about allowing people to open carry," Ray said.

The bill requires that guns be properly holstered and rifles encased when being openly carried in public and allows someone with a gun to be stopped if they're acting in a way that would cause a "reasonable person" to be concerned about safety.

But the bill also spells out that just displaying a gun in public does not constitute disorderly conduct.

That resulted in debate. Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, said the bill appeared to be an attempt to say those Utahns who are not comfortable seeing guns displayed while they shop, dine or see a movie are unreasonable.

House Minority Whip Greg Hughes, R-Draper, said despite whatever discomfort some people may experience, someone should not be stopped merely for displaying a weapon as allowed by the bill.

"We're not a state of mob rule," Hughes said.
 
#79 ·
Looks like Mathis has substituted the bill. HB76-S1 (first substitute) has passed the House and is now in the Senate. KSL has a story on this and a poll asking about whether you should be required to have a permit to carry concealed. The correct answer of "No, it is already a 2nd Amendment right" is winning, but only by 56-42 with a couple points worth of "I don't know but like to click on polls anyway."

The new bill legalizing permit free concealed carry of a firearm by a non-prohibited person 21 years of age or older.

However, a gun carried pursuant to this language cannot be "loaded" as that is defined in existing code. It must be "Utah unloaded".

I'm not happy about this, but it is still an improvement over current law and with 51-18 support in the House, has a good chance of clearing the Senate and becoming law despite Herbert's opposition. Clearly, this has been done in response to Herbert. For now, we should encourage the Senate and governor to support the bill in its current form.

Here is the roll call vote on this bill in the House.

1HB 76
Concealed Weapon Carry Amendments
Mathis

Substituted 3rd Reading
Final Passage
Yeas 51 Nays 18 N/V 6 Closed

Yeas - 51
Anderegg, J. Anderson, Jerry Barlow, S. Barrus, R. Christensen, L.
Christofferson, K. Cox, S. Cunningham, R. Dee, B. Draxler, J.
Duckworth, S. Edwards, R. Froerer, G. Gibson, F. Greene, B.
Greenwood, R. Grover, K. Handy, S. Hughes, G. Hutchings, E.
Ipson, D. Ivory, K. Kennedy, M. Knotwell, J. Layton, D.
Lifferth, D. Lockhart, R. Mathis, J. McCay, D. McKell, M.
Menlove, R. Nelson, M. Nielson, J. Noel, M. Oda, C.
Perry, L. Peterson, V. Pitcher, D. Powell, K. Ray, P.
Redd, E. Roberts, M. Sagers, D. Sanpei, D. Snow, V. L.
Stanard, J. Stratton, K. Tanner, E. Webb, R. C. Westwood, J.
Wilcox, R.

Nays - 18
Anderson, Johnny Arent, P. Bird, J. Briscoe, J. Brown, D.
Chavez-Houck, R. Cosgrove, T. Eliason, S. Fisher, Janice Hall, C.
King, B. Moss, C. Peterson, J. Poulson, M. Romero, A.
Seelig, J. Wheatley, M. Wiley, L.

Absent or not voting - 6
Brown, M. Dunnigan, J. Hemingway, L. Last, B. McIff, K.
Wilson, B.
Charles
 
#81 ·
AKM said:
UnderratedF00l said:
Following @LibertasUtah on Twitter, it sounds like the substitute bill for HB76 has passed the House, 51-18. Now moves to the Senate.
Well this is disappointing. :(
At least we'll get UNLOADED constitutional carry. :roll:
Just as useful as allowing one a Fire-extinguisher THAT IS NOT CHARGED OR FUNCTIONAL!

What a bunch of TWITS!
 
#82 ·
With this amendment (I haven't looked it up yet) is it required to be unloaded while it is concealed no matter where you are (blm, public and private land) or is it similar to the open carry law that it is on streets, etc where it is required to be Utah unloaded?
 
#83 ·
JoeSparky said:
AKM said:
UnderratedF00l said:
Following @LibertasUtah on Twitter, it sounds like the substitute bill for HB76 has passed the House, 51-18. Now moves to the Senate.
Well this is disappointing. :(
At least we'll get UNLOADED constitutional carry. :roll:
Just as useful as allowing one a Fire-extinguisher THAT IS NOT CHARGED OR FUNCTIONAL!

What a bunch of TWITS!
Racking the slide if the magazine is charged makes the firearm ready for use. Your fire extinguisher analogy breaks down, given the extinguisher cannot be made ready for use as easily.
 
#84 ·
UtahCFP said:
Racking the slide if the magazine is charged makes the firearm ready for use. Your fire extinguisher analogy breaks down, given the extinguisher cannot be made ready for use as easily.
I grant that it isn't a perfect analogy but it is possible to charge the fire extinguisher with compressed air as long as the dry powder is already there!

I will further grant that this bill is an improvement over what we have now regarding our Constitutionally PROTECTED rights to keep and bear arm and this right is NOT TO BE INFRINGED!--- An improvement, but not a big one!

So, I guess, going back to my fire extinguisher analogy.... with this bill, I would be able to carry an air tank with me with which I could charge the extinguisher if it were to be needed! :disgusted: :disgusted:
 
#85 ·
JoeSparky said:
UtahCFP said:
Racking the slide if the magazine is charged makes the firearm ready for use. Your fire extinguisher analogy breaks down, given the extinguisher cannot be made ready for use as easily.
I grant that it isn't a perfect analogy but it is possible to charge the fire extinguisher with compressed air as long as the dry powder is already there!

I will further grant that this bill is an improvement over what we have now regarding our Constitutionally PROTECTED rights to keep and bear arm and this right is NOT TO BE INFRINGED!--- An improvement, but not a big one!

So, I guess, going back to my fire extinguisher analogy.... with this bill, I would be able to carry an air tank with me with which I could charge the extinguisher if it were to be needed! :disgusted: :disgusted:
You are torturing the analogy. :wink:

Two seconds to rack the slide, no additional equipment needed. Penalty for carrying Utah unloaded is one less round, and the time needed to rack the slide.
 
#86 ·
UtahCFP said:
JoeSparky said:
UtahCFP said:
Racking the slide if the magazine is charged makes the firearm ready for use. Your fire extinguisher analogy breaks down, given the extinguisher cannot be made ready for use as easily.
I grant that it isn't a perfect analogy but it is possible to charge the fire extinguisher with compressed air as long as the dry powder is already there!

I will further grant that this bill is an improvement over what we have now regarding our Constitutionally PROTECTED rights to keep and bear arm and this right is NOT TO BE INFRINGED!--- An improvement, but not a big one!

So, I guess, going back to my fire extinguisher analogy.... with this bill, I would be able to carry an air tank with me with which I could charge the extinguisher if it were to be needed! :disgusted: :disgusted:
You are torturing the analogy. :wink:

Two seconds to rack the slide, no additional equipment needed. Penalty for carrying Utah unloaded is one less round, and the time needed to rack the slide.
So, Joe, what you need is a fire extinguisher that has the compressed air (or CO2, etc) attached in a separate tank, with a quick-release valve. I understand there's a guy named Goldberg that might be able to design one for ya...... :lol:
 
#87 ·
jktseug said:
With this amendment (I haven't looked it up yet) is it required to be unloaded while it is concealed no matter where you are (blm, public and private land) or is it similar to the open carry law that it is on streets, etc where it is required to be Utah unloaded?
I can answer in regard to BLM/NPS federal lands and say whatever the state law says in regard to any type of weapons carry, is what the BLM/NPS will follow. If concealed, it should not be seen anyway. :D
 
#88 ·
JoeSparky said:
Just as useful as allowing one a Fire-extinguisher THAT IS NOT CHARGED OR FUNCTIONAL!

What a bunch of TWITS!
I'm told the Israeli military might disagree with you on the usability of a firearm carried without one in the chamber.

Bear in mind, that in its current form, the bill does not take away anything from us. It just gives us less than we wanted. This has been true of EVERY good pro-RKBA bill passed in the last 20 years. I know the slow and steady approach can seem tiresome. But it has worked well and will continue to work if we continue to work it.

Especially in contrast to the number of States going backwards on RKBA this year, that we are making the kind of improvements we are is quite remarkable.

I urge support of the bill in its current form and continued involvement to move to the even better things in the future.

Charles
 
#89 ·
A wise man once said, "ANY progress back up the slippery slope is still progress." Okay, so I just made that one up. It still holds true.
 
#90 ·
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.
 
#91 ·
Hawk87 said:
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.
 
#93 ·
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
 
#94 ·
Applications might drop, but not much as people I talk to seem to recognize that the Permit still has a couple very valid uses.
 
#95 ·
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.
 
#96 ·
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.
 
#97 ·
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
 
#98 ·
sigmanluke said:
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.
 
#99 ·
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.
 
#100 ·
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... :)
 
#101 ·
RustyShackleford said:
sigmanluke said:
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top