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.
What people? Has it been proposed in the state legislature, or is it the musings of those on the street, or the media?
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?
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.
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 :-/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
mrjam2jab, thanks much. I'll be emailing them for a packet :biggrin2: or is there a way to request the packet on the website?
I still might get a FL permit later, in case reciprocity agreements change. I looked on usacarry.com's maps, and the only difference between the AZ and FL permits is my home state of WA, who doesn't recognize AZ's permit. Hmm. . . and ironically, FL doesn't recognize a nonresident AZ permit, but they do recognize my WA permit.
Just email or telephone. I sent my request via email, had a response within 20 minutes. :smile:
Yeah...FL is pretty hypocritical. One of, if not the largest, issuer of non-residents licenses...doesn't recognize any...
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Defensive Carry
5.4M posts
117.5K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!