This is a discussion on Utah permit may require a permit in your own state within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Some folks are proposing that Utah should only give permits to non-residents after they have acquired a permit in their own state. I don't like ...
Some folks are proposing that Utah should only give permits to non-residents after they have acquired a permit in their own state.
I don't like this. What if the person lives in a commie state and can't get a permit? Also, Lott makes a very good argument that the cost of getting a license has an impact on crime. Now some people will have to pay twice as much or more.
We're all in favor of reducing violent crime. It's just that pro-gunners have a method that is proven effective. Anti-gunners don't.
---
John Moses Browning day is January 24th, 2011
What people? Has it been proposed in the state legislature, or is it the musings of those on the street, or the media?Originally Posted by Coder
I agree, this is a bad idea, for Utah as well as the applicants. I assume the Utah permit was originally issued to non-residents so they could carry in Utah, so a Chicagoan, or a Californian wouldn't be able to carry on their Utah vacation?
Array
I never really thought much about getting a utah permit. That is until today when I got an email for utah training permit class here in nebraska. Even though I already have a Nebraska permit to carry in most every state I may travel to, it may be worth spending the money just to expand my number of reciprocal states.
Array
Forgot to say, don't change the price to apply in Utah.
I was doing research, and determined that adding Utah wouldn't give me anything that my WA, NV, and OR wouldn't do coupled with a FL. . . which doesn't require any training beyond what was required for OR and NV. No special class that costs $200 around here :-/
Array
The only reason why I consider it is the class is offered to me for $45 and + an application fee to Utah for the permit. That's not a bad deal.
Array
What "some folks" are you referring to?
Last edited by GM; January 8th, 2011 at 11:12 AM.
"The Second Amendment: America's Original Homeland Security"
Array
The main reason for this I think is that all the non residents are taxing Utah's system and the residents are getting tired of waiting longer and longer for there permit. Why should Utah be burdened with all the non resident applications just because other states can't get it figured out.
Because of the additional income that it does bring? I know a great number of Maryland (may issue State - HA!), have Utah and/or Florida permits.
Rick
EOD - Initial success or total failure
The system could give priority to in-state applicants and solve that problem.
Array
I have my NY permit and out of state permits from Utah and Florida. Those extra 2 give me over 30 states to carry in.
If you don't have a permit in your own state would you even be able to have a gun? I know without a NY permit I couldn't own a gun and would have no need for a Utah permit. Sorry if I missed something here. It's probably not that simple.
In most states, you don't need a permit to own a firearm, just to carry it.
For example, here in WA, if you have a CPL, you can pick up a pistol immediately at time of purchase. If you DON'T have a CPL, you have to wait five days.
Last edited by livewire; January 8th, 2011 at 05:06 PM. Reason: detail
I talked to the folks at Utah Shooting Sports Council today. In Utah this organization works closely with the state legislature on gun bills (good and bad). They're a good reason why Utah has some good laws and why Utah has killed some bad laws.
I got some clarification that made me feel a little better about this, but I'm still not sure where I am on it.
Basically some states want to make money on permits, like Texas. When their own residents can get a Utah permit for much cheaper, they don't bother getting a Texas one. This is causing some states to consider dropping their reciprocity.
So what is being considered is that if the applicant for a Utah permit resides in a "shall issue" state, they would have to acquire a permit from their home state before they could apply for a Utah permit. Residents of commie states could still apply as they do today.
The word I got was that it is three times the work to process out-of-state applicants as opposed to Utah residents.
We're all in favor of reducing violent crime. It's just that pro-gunners have a method that is proven effective. Anti-gunners don't.
---
John Moses Browning day is January 24th, 2011
That sounds like it might lead to more of a backlog, since they would have to constantly verify the shall/may/never issue status of each state since these things change.
Why don't they (states like TX) just not recognize out of state permits for local residents?
I think that's the way it is here in WA. If you're a WA resident, you have to have a WA permit to carry, irrespective of whether you have an out of state permit or not. At least I think that's the way it is here, it's a non-issue for me since I have a WA permit.
Last edited by livewire; January 8th, 2011 at 05:11 PM. Reason: expansion
Array
On your first point - the shall/may/never issue status doesn't really change much - that's no big deal in processing apps.
Your second point - state residents must have their own state's permit makes sense. That is the way it is here in SD - all out of state permits are recognized, unless you are a resident. In that case, you must have the SD permit.
~~~~~
The only common sense gun legislation was written about 224 years ago.
I carry always not because I go places trouble is likely, but because trouble has a habit of not staying in its assigned zone.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
