Intent of HB76 was misrepresented

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • rpm9 Lehi, UT
    May 2, 2013 11:14 a.m.

    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 requirement out.

  • rpm9 Lehi, UT
    May 1, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    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?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 1, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    RPM9.... we are so close on this... but there are some subtleties about the Utah Law. It reads

    U.C.A. 76-10-502 When a weapon is
    deemed 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.

  • rpm9 Lehi, UT
    May 1, 2013 1:43 p.m.

    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.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 1, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    "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.

  • rpm9 Lehi, UT
    May 1, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    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 definition.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 30, 2013 8:06 p.m.

    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 weapons.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    April 30, 2013 5:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    April 30, 2013 5:40 p.m.

    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.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 30, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    Who in their right mind wants pople carrying around deadly weapons in the grocery store or on the street. Please vote this extremist out.

  • Wasatch Al South Jordan, UT
    April 30, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    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?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 30, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    April 30, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    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?

  • The Hammer lehi, utah
    April 30, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    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 deadly force.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    April 30, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    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 gun.)

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 30, 2013 6:28 a.m.

    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?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 30, 2013 5:46 a.m.

    "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.