close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Utah soon legal to carry w/out a permit

Discussion in 'Carry Issues' started by Jdog, Jan 23, 2013.

  1. tnedator

    tnedator Lifetime Member

    552
    0
    May 22, 2009
    I'm a big 2nd amendment supporter and favor almost no limits, but I do feel that most people who carry concealed are under trained and am torn. There is part of me that feels that there should be substantially more training and more stringent shooting/qualifying before a person should be allowed to carry concealed.
     

    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013

  2. Jdog

    Jdog

    954
    0
    Sep 10, 2007
    wasatch range

    Right now any law abiding citizen can legally go to a store and walk out with any new firearm within about 20 minutes after paperwork approval.
    Any used firearm can be legally bought even quicker than that with zero paperwork

    So why would you have to do an accuracy test to cover that gun up with your shirt?

    Currently you don't have to do any sort of shooting test to get your Utah CCW.
     
  3. Kelo6

    Kelo6

    359
    84
    May 20, 2008
    I can understand your position, and held it for a long time, but came to the following conclusion.


    To me, carry permits give the criminals an unfair advantage. Criminals carry their weapons without the cost and restrictions of a permit.


    If I want to be "law abiding" just so I can have an option to defend myself if need be, then I have to buy my weapon, take a class from the local sheriff (or other certified provider), then pay for my license which has to be renewed every 4yrs or so. In Oregon we're not required to fire a weapon in this class. The blood isn't running in the streets here yet.


    All tolled, it costs me around $115 just in fees.


    The criminals carry their gun regardless, and their weapon is probably stolen. Or bought off the street.

    Using a weapon in the commission of a crime is already illegal. Even if a CHL holder uses their weapon in a criminal manner, and is convicted they are a criminal. This is proven by the many dolts with Carry permits that commit crimes (including at least one here in Oregon in the last year), who are then convicted and their license is revoked.


    Licensing is a feel-good measure. It helps people "feel safe" that we have "proven" that we are law-abiding citizens.


    We're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Not have to prove our innocence and law-abiding stance before being able to execute our right to self-defense.



    The bad guys carry their guns without a permit. So why can't I? The only difference between us and them is commission of crimes. Where there again, we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

    Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming don't require permits, and the blood isn't running in the streets.

    The reason for this is that the law abiding citizens aren't out to kill. They're out to defend themselves. The presence of a permit isn't a determining factor. The good guys have their guns, and the bad guys have theirs.

    Just my $.02
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013
  4. ca survivor

    ca survivor

    8,435
    57
    Dec 25, 2011
    Florida
    and with out a permit, how can a LEO differentiate for a law abiding citizen and a criminal with a gun?
     
  5. Kc.38

    Kc.38

    89
    3
    Apr 17, 2012
    IF he is a felon or is committing a crime.
     
  6. tnedator

    tnedator Lifetime Member

    552
    0
    May 22, 2009
    It's not about the need for licensing, hence the reason I'm torn. Part of me hates any additional licensing/restrictions. While the map of handgun permits in NY recently made news, a number of leftist newspapers have published names and addresses of CCL holders in the past. There are lots of downsides to licensing of any kind.

    That said, both people I have met in person, and lots of the posts on GT, lead me to believe that a lot of CCL holders are pretty ignorant of the use of force and other issues related to concealed carry, and based on my experience with the Arkansas CCL process (I've renewed mine three times with three different instructors), my belief is that the testing isn't high enough.

    If we are purely looking at it from the standpoint of the 2nd amendment, there is ZERO doubt that the intention was for us to be armed, with military style weapons, to be part of the militia, which was every able bodied male between the age or 18 and 45 (sorry women, your not covered...). It's more open for debate whether it actually intends to give us the right to carry handguns for self defense.

    Regardless, I'm in favor of a national concealed carry law, but at the same time, there are plenty of people with concealed carry permits that have had little or no training. That puts them and bystanders at risk.

    So, as I said, on the one hand I don't like further restrictions (especially because with the libs/anti-gun lobby, you give them an inch, they will take 200 miles), but if it wasn't for fear of escalating restrictions, I would be completely in favor of a Mas Ayoob style training course (his MAG 40 shortened and crammed into two days) being a requirement for any person carrying concealed, but then that person can carry nationwide, with far fewer BS restrictions on 'where' we can carry than we now have.

    P.S. It isn't about proving we are law abiding citizens, it's about being properly trained to use a deadly weapon in a public setting where other people's lives are at risk. Hence a qualification of some kind, proving proficiency, not much different than a driving test (yes, I know driving is a privilege, not a constitutional right, but using it as an example of proving proficiency).
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013
  7. Kelo6

    Kelo6

    359
    84
    May 20, 2008
    Exactly. If you have a gun, you have a gun. LEOs don't care about whether or not you have a permit. There are plenty of people with permits who commit crimes. It's nice for you to tell the officer, of course, but to some officers that results in worse treatment as we have seen.

    Don't get me wrong. I am pro LEO, and volunteer with a local Sheriff's Office. I have been on traffic stops where drivers and passengers have identified themselves as CHL holders. The general consensus with the deputies I have been with is "Great. You don't show me yours, and I won't show you mine."

    Your possession of a weapon isn't pertinent to the stop. If we're citing you for running a red light, then it doesn't apply.
     
  8. HexHead

    HexHead

    4,815
    0
    Jul 16, 2009

    The law abiding citizen isn't committing a crime.

    The criminal act should be the crime, not just carrying a gun. Punish for the bad act committed with the gun, not just for carrying one.
     
  9. Kelo6

    Kelo6

    359
    84
    May 20, 2008
    And here we'll have to disagree. There are plenty of officers out there who can't shoot worth crap. There are officers here in Portland who only carry a gun because they have to. They qualify as required, but are anti-gun. It's just a requirement.

    Then there are those who seek training, even on their own dime to make sure they are proficient with their weapons.

    Citizens are the same way.


    And I hate it when people use the driving example. Not because of the difference between "privileged vs constitutional right" but because licensing drivers doesn't really work either.


    As someone involved in LE, I see people with expired registration, expired insurance, and suspended licenses all the time. The licensing process doesn't deter them from driving their vehicle. The licensing process only gives the DA the ability to prosecute on a higher level.

    Now if it was about vehicle safety, then keep the regulations and insurance, but licensing the driver? Why? So we know they drive safely?

    How about all those people who have a valid driver's license but still speed?

    How about all those people who have a valid DL and run lights? Roll stop-signs? Change lanes without signaling? Follow too closely? Text and drive? Talk and drive?

    Licensing doesn't stop these problems. Officers doing traffic stops do. They see the violation and initiate the stop and enforce the law. Then they have their day in court to challenge if desired.

    The only thing a license does is say "this person did this, and we can attach this incident to their name and number". It's a national ID system to assign responsibility. So why can't we do that with our SSN? Why do we need another ID card?


    The only real stat shows that kids who drive under the age of 18 are more reckless, particularly males. Yet we issue them licenses anyway. If it was about safety, we wouldn't issue until 18 or later.


    But honestly? Show me a case where a citizen with a CHL could actually get on target and shoot and we'll have a discussion about required training. Those cases are few and far between. Most shootings are stopped/countered by off-duty LE. (there's a thread on this in Cop Talk. Very interesting)

    LE tend to be (not always, as stated earlier) Those with training for high-stress scenarios. Those with stress-induced training. Those trained for knowledge of use of force. Those trained to fight instead of just defend themselves.


    Not lambasting CHL holders. Many choose to carry to defend themselves, and that is their right to do so. This automatically reduces the number of bullets flying. There are those who will turn and run if not directly threatened.

    I believe the one case of a CHL holder engaging an active shooter was at the SouthCenter Mall shooting in Washington. That CHL holder drew down but couldn't shoot fast enough. He was shot 8 times (I believe) by the bad guy shooter.



    In any case, DC vs Heller already established that the 2nd Amendment provides Citizens the right to keep and bear arms for self defense. So that decision is moot.


    Even the type of training you are suggesting doesn't do force-on-force training. Give them that adrenaline dump that gets them used to being shot at. And we can all agree that two days worth of training won't be enough. We all know that more training and practice is required. But unless we're going to require citizens to show up and qualify once a month or once a quarter, how do we keep track of that?

    I think most CHL holders seek their own training. Not all, but there are many. A lot of states don't require a proficiency test (Mine included), and blood isn't running in the streets. There aren't a lot of shoot-outs happening and a lot of accidental deaths at the hands of CHL holders acting in self defense.


    I guess with all of these ideas, the question because "So what?"

    Do we get to set limits on the rights of fellow citizens because we don't think they can shoot good enough? Because we're scared of their abilities (or lack thereof)? That's what led to licensing in the first place. People scared of others and scared of firearms in the hands of people they don't trust.


    If that's the case, there are officers who scare me. Including the famed DEA agent. And they're "certified".



    The whole conversation is a slippery slope. Where do the regulations and requirements end?


    -Kelo6
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013
  10. HexHead

    HexHead

    4,815
    0
    Jul 16, 2009
    You're just an elitist. A right is for everyone, without having to pass tests, pay fees or asking permission. And just what the hell do you think "bear" means?
     
  11. Gunnut 45/454

    Gunnut 45/454

    12,129
    9
    Jun 20, 2002
    Sweet I hope it passes! All for Constituion carry! We should never have to ask or pay to exersise a right! Training be dammed! It's the responsibility of the carrier to know the laws PERIOD! And if they screw up and break the law so be it then they have to pay the price!:whistling:
     
  12. tnedator

    tnedator Lifetime Member

    552
    0
    May 22, 2009
    I don't know, something that craps in the woods???

    When you grow up and can have a civil discussion, come back and I'm game.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2013
  13. tnedator

    tnedator Lifetime Member

    552
    0
    May 22, 2009
    I here what you are saying and as I indicated, I'm torn myself. With the exception of a VERY small number of citizens, most will never get force on force or attend intense self defense orientated training, and more importantly, do it on a continuing basis.

    I also understand and agree with what you are saying about LEO's and many rarely firing their guns.

    As to Heller, if Scalia or Kennedy go down in the next for years (or another conservative) see how quickly Heller becomes old precedent when the activist liberal justices rule exactly the opposite.

    Anyway, back to the car analogy, it at least shows a reasonable level of proficiency at the time you begin driving. Lets face it, we ALL know that a lot of people carrying concealed don't even have a basic level of proficiency in firing their weapon, not to mention proper safety (muzzle direction, finger off trigger, etc). It seams reasonable that if they are going to be carrying a weapon out of their home, they should at least begin with some basics.

    Anyway, I knew this opinion would not be popular, and it's a sticky situation. On the one hand, we have a right that shouldn't be infringed, on the other hand, we have untrained, careless idiots walking around with guns. I'm not giving you the liberal, the streets will run red with blood if we allow concealed carry, as we have decades of proof that isn't the case. However, that doesn't mean we can't do better.

    I've had my CCL since the first year Arkansas issued them. I fully support CCL and wish Arkansas had more friendly CCL laws, such as signs not having the force of law and stuff like that.

    I would love to see a national CCL, but also understand where some states have virtually no requirements (a friend walked into his Alabama Sherrif's office, made a $20 donation, and walked out with a hand written permit) for issuing CCL's, while others have at least some basic training.
     
  14. bear62

    bear62

    1,460
    19
    Feb 5, 2005
    Rocky Mountains
    Soooooo .... what will happen to all of Utah reciprocity agreements with other states?

    I have a Utah non-resident permit which gives me the right to carry in some states that my resident Colorado permit does not...........:faint:
     
  15. tnedator

    tnedator Lifetime Member

    552
    0
    May 22, 2009
    Good question. In the last couple years, AR expanded their reciprocity, so I haven't even bothered to renew my out of state Utah, which expired late last year.

    Would seem like Utah reciprocity would go away, or possibly honor reciprocity with people still hold a non-expired Utah CCL. It will be interesting to see how that pans out.
     
  16. Kelo6

    Kelo6

    359
    84
    May 20, 2008

    Let me again say, that I understand the gravity and complexity of the situation. And while your opinion is "unpopular" in right-wing sectors, it's a popular one for most moderates on the issue.


    Let me further highlight where the vehicle anology breaks down.

    You said it yourself:


    That may be true, but those idiots have no need to use it.


    The difference is that people drive their 4,000-9,000LB missile down the freeway at 55-80MPH depending on where you're at.

    Everybody uses their car for driving. It's a proactive use of an inanimate object.

    Firearms carried for self defense are the opposite.

    They see rare use (if any) in the lifetime of a CHL holder, which is as it should be! If nothing else, we see criminals deterred by the presence of a firearm, or Murphy's law at work. Murphy tends to leave the prepared alone.


    What do we see?

    1) We see criminals carrying and/or using guns regardless of law.
    2) Law abiding citizens lawfully carrying weapons, and no major negative side effects because of it (besides the stupid ones who break the law and are therefore, criminals).


    If we remove the licensing requirement, I think this trend would continue. There will always be the criminals and there will always be the idiots.


    Those with a mindset of personal responsibility and self defense who choose to carry, will continue to do so lawfully, either with a permit as required by law, or without one.

    I don't think there will be any data that shows a huge spike in irresponsible use or carriage of firearms.


    Again, don't feel like I'm trying to attack your position as I once held it myself.


    I'm just saying I realized the rationality/logic behind the thinking doesn't play out. There's no data to back it up.
     
  17. domin8ss

    domin8ss

    413
    0
    Feb 20, 2012
    First paragraph true. Not touching the second. Third is false. 6 rounds at 10 feet. I took the class on 7/3/12 in Salt Lake.
     
  18. domin8ss

    domin8ss

    413
    0
    Feb 20, 2012
    I agree. Compared to other states permit classes I have taken, I was disappointed with the class in Utah.
     
  19. domin8ss

    domin8ss

    413
    0
    Feb 20, 2012
    As the article stated, permits are still encouraged for people traveling outside of Utah. It sound like permits will still be available, but not required while in Utah.