"HB76 does not change who can carry a loaded gun — meaning a gun with
a bullet in the chamber."To me, this is one of the most
misleading statements. A loaded weapon in most any other jurisdiction is a gun
with rounds in its magazine. A round doesn't need to be chambered to be
considered loaded in just about any other place on this planet other than
Utah.When people are told not to keep loaded weapons around kids,
they are not saying the gun can still be loaded, just a round not chambered.
They mean there are no rounds in the run, and there is zero chance of an
accidental discharge.Redefining "loaded" doesn't make
the situation any safer.
Talk about word games.What does it take to get a bullet into the
chamber? one second perhaps?How many people would go through the
CCP requirements just to overcome this minor issue?To say that the CCP
process has nothing to do with HB76 is disingenuous."The true
intent of this bill was to alleviate the potential for public excitement at the
sight of someone carrying a gun and still honor a citizen's right to
carry."What in this bill would do that?
I'm still waiting for that gun in the illustration to go off and amputate a
portion of that guy's anatomy.If this is the way Utah's
gun packers handle their weapons, we have a problem.But come to
think of it, we DO have a problem, don't we?(If you can't
see from the picture what the problem is, you shouldn't be anywhere near a
HB 76 does effect the concealed carry law and this article is full of word games
about a chambered round or unchambered which doesn't make a difference when
the mechanism takes less than a second to carry out. Concealed
carry is good public policy when it includes instructional guidance for those
that do wish to carry. HB 76 would take away the incentive to take this class
and do away with the vital information of how and when to carry and when to use
With due respect to the Senator's intent, I frankly do not understand why
he would advance legislation that, in his own words, changes nothing. The
opposite is true. Currently, the concealed-carry permitting process requires
training, which can do nothing but promote public safety. Why does the senator
want to make the public less safe?
First, how do I as a citizen know if the round is chambered or not so as to be
concerned enough to report the offender?Second, I just don't
understand open carry at all. I love to shoot. I carry openly only to the
field or the range. Otherwise, I have no desire to advertise I have a weapon.
The same is true of all those I trust. I see those who carry openly in most
other situations to be someone intent on making some sort of statement. And the
nature of that statement is potentially troubling.If I am walking in
my subdivision and someone passes by with a firearm in open carry (and they are
clearly not on their way to the field or range) I would be really concerned
about them and their intent. Why? Because NO ONE I know who enjoys firearms
and is responsible handles a firearm this way.
It appears Senator Christensen is much too involved in an unhealthy affair with
guns. Don't his constituents have many more important concerns that he
should represent them with as an elected official?
Who in their right mind wants pople carrying around deadly weapons in the
grocery store or on the street. Please vote this extremist out.
I carried a sidearm as a military civilian in Iraq. I don't claim to be a
weapons expert, but at no point, at any time, have I ever heard an instructor or
soldier refer to a weapon with a full magazine and no round in the chamber as
"unloaded." In fact the ONLY time a round should EVER be chambered is
if there is an imminent intent to fire it. To assert that there is a
distinction between chambered and unchambered rounds is disingenuous.
I came here hoping for some intelligent dialogue,and all I found was
rantings by the misinformed and irrationally fearful left.Many
states have passed a similar bill in years past, and no one noticed any
difference.Irrational fear, you betcha ya.The bill was
needed to undo unnecessary and over-burdonsome past laws.
Truth.. educate us uneducated ones. Show is anywhere where a loaded gun is
defined as having a chambered round. Why don't you show us numbers to back
up your claims about these 4 states... and Utah's law far exceeded
Montana's law.... their law only applies to unincorporated areas.... unlike
Utahs. Had Utah stopped where Wyoming's law did... perhaps it
wouldn't have hit so much resistance... but it didn't."The bill was needed to undo unnecessary and over-burdonsome past
laws."You are really saying that Utah's CCW were hardly
"burdensome". What... needing a copy of you UDL? The
photograph? Or is it the fingerprint card? Or perhaps its passing the weapon
familiarity certification.... which of these is so burdensome? Its harder to
get a drivers license than a CCW permit. And yet millions seem to accomplish
that.trust me... many besides yourself have read Lott's stuff.
Just because we don't agree with you doesn't make one misinformed or
irrationally fearful.. nor "left". Left and Right own, and carry
If the intent of the right to keep and bear arms is self-defense, and we have an
innate, god-given right to self-defense, then, yes, the current concealed-carry
law is overly burdensome.Think about a woman suddenly threatened by
an ex-husband or ex-boyfriend. Should she have to go to a class, submit an
application to the state and wait for a card in the mail before she can carry a
gun in a concealed fashion for her own safety?Arguing about the Utah
legal definition of loaded or unloaded is disingenuous here because that
definition already exists in Utah law. HB76 did not change or affect that
definition.HB76 really was quite simple. Those already allowed to
carry a gun (i.e. in an open carry fashion) by this bill, would simply continue
being able to do so, and wear a coat over it. That's all.If you
are worried about the definitions of loaded versus unloaded in Utah law, then
you need to look at a law to change existing code. HB76 had no effect on this
"Think about a woman suddenly threatened by an ex-husband or ex-boyfriend.
Should she have to go to a class, submit an application to the state and wait
for a card in the mail before she can carry a gun in a concealed fashion for her
own safety?:yes. And before you operate a car, I think you should
have to take a class for that too... because how you control that gun or that
car impacts others safety. It isn't just about you... it is about the
safety of others around you. Just a scan of todays AP wire, and
you can find three recent incidents of accidental death by a kid under 6 with
accidental discharge - where in these cases twice other kids were killed - one a
2 year old sibling - and the other a mother of one of the children was killed.
Asking someone who wants to carry a loaded weapon in public to know
and pass safety laws is not burdensome, particularly when there are no little
accidents with guns. And no, I am not a gun hater, just bought another one at
lunch... so lets not go there.
To: Utah Blue Devil. OK, except Utah law currently does not require any
safety course to carry a gun in public. In the scenario of the threatened woman,
if she can legally purchase and possess a gun, then she can immediately, legally
carry it in public, so long as it is open/uncovered. With passage of HB76, that
all stays the same, except she can cover that legally carried weapon.I agree that safety is important, but in Utah law today (an in many other
states) a person is not required to complete a safety course before they carry
in public.If you are worried about gun safety course requirements in
Utah law, then you need to look at a law to change existing code. HB76 had no
effect on gun safety course requirements in Utah code.
RPM9.... we are so close on this... but there are some subtleties about the Utah
Law. It readsU.C.A. 76-10-502 When a weapon isdeemed
loaded.“(1) For the purpose of this chapter, any pistol, revolver,
shotgun, rifle, or other weapon described in this part shall be deemed to be
loaded when there is an unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile in the firing
position.(2) Pistols and revolvers shall also be deemed to be loaded when
an unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile is in a position whereby the
manual operation of any mechanism once would cause the unexpended cartridge,
shell, or projectile to be fired.”So a weapon is loaded when (a)
there is a round in firing position or (b) when it is one mechanical action away
from firing. This means that non-permit holders can carry a pistol with a full
magazine, but an empty chamber (chambering a round + pulling the trigger = two
mechanical actions). A revolver cannot have a round in line with the barrel OR
in the next cylinder.So what you are saying doesn't apply to
all gun types.
Utah Blue Dog... I'm a CFP holder and very family with Utah legal
definitions of loaded /unloaded. Not sure what that has to do with gun safety
requirements in code. Can you please clarify the point if the Utah code
reference? In the scenario of the threatened woman, again, current
law allows her to carry in public (unloaded and open if she does not have a
CFP). But some seem to be arguing that if said woman now covers the
unloaded gun she should have to first wait until she had completed a 4 hour
course and gets a card from the state, because somehow our safety will be at
risk once she covers gets the gun, unless she had a permit?
What's the value added by HB76? "o alleviate the potential for public
excitement at the sight of someone carrying a gun and still honor a
citizen's right to carry."If safety is not a concern for
someone to open-carry, why would it be a concern for them to carry concealed?
Why is carrying concealed "a different story" than carrying open? As a gun owner, I perceive the whole concern about safety training
before carrying a weapon to be a straw-man argument full of poppycock. Carrying
a weapon is generally not dangerous- certainly magnitudes less than driving a
car. Whether a gun is in a holster on my person or in a locked safe,
it is no more dangerous to me or others in either case. I suggest that unless a
gun is in-hand with intent to fire (such as at the range or in a defensive-gun
use) it is not even in use.If getting a CCP is "NOT that big of
a deal" then why require it? In that case, it sounds pretty much to be an
arbitrary and capricious requirement, in which case we ought to throw the whole