Utah Legislator proposes allowing concealed firearms without a license

bear-arms.jpg


can someone slaughter a bear and send me its arms via fedex, i want in on this
The question is wether or not the founding fathers were rather thinking of having nothing over your arms, as in bearing them, wearing a tank top or something.

Pity they didn't make a mistake when they wrote then second, though.

Armed+Bear.jpg


Get a decent apartment door? :lol:
Indeed. Apart from the question, who the FUCK goes around kicking in doors? You've gotta have some pretty nasty enemies if they.. KICK DOWN your door. And you have to have a fucking shitty door as well. If someone managed to kick down the door to my apartment, I'd be scared to shoot him, as I'd expect him to be made of solid steel, therefore making it risky, as the bullets might bounce back.

:p
 
Problem with your idea is that there is statistically no relationship between legal carry and an increase in violence/accidents in an area. If there were, Vermont (which has never required a permit to carry concealed) would be the crime capital of the US.

That one gets filed with the other idiot theory that "poverty inevitably increases crime," something that was thoroughly debunked this year. And the "Oh, God, if we let people carry, it'll be like Dodge City! Blood in the streets! Mass murders!" theory has also been thoroughly shot down. (Psst - you should be happy to see it become Dodge City, because per capita and at the peak of lawlessness, Dodge City had less crime and less murders than modern day Chicago. Think about that.)

Edit: In addition - if you want to change it so that education is required before exercising a right (it's not for any of the others, some of which are potentially more dangerous than the right to keep and bear arms), feel perfectly free to try to pass an amendment to the Constitution. Until then, it's still Constitutional, and the courts are more and more coming around to the view that most restrictions on RKBA are unconstitutional.


Source on the poverty doesn't increase crime study.



In Utah you can open carry without a permit, but the weapon cannot have a round in the chamber or fire simply by pulling the trigger.

The reason I want stricter controls on CFP cards is because I want more states to honor my CFP.


I have carried in other states under my CCW permit, even on out of state flights. There is a long process that has to be gone through for the FAA approval and it is best left to the professionals (I was, had somebody in the office handle it all).

Carrying in another state is a bit easier. Contact the state you are going to be visiting and find out what they require to honor your current permit,(state police is the best option here). Some states want nothing more than a copy of your current permit and to give you a list of their laws concerning concealed carry. Other states make you go to your local sheriff office and take an interview with one of their state reps on the other end. Others want you to bend over and take it like a man, then they will get to the paperwork.



In the case of #1, that's pretty much a flat out ban - and is thus unconstitutional - as you would be unable to transport it for service, purchase and transport it home, or even move it from one residence to the other. This is what the Supreme Court shot down (in part) in the recent decisions against Washington DC and Chicago.

As for number 2, I agree that death should be the automatic penalty for any firearm (or any other unjustified) homicide. In Texas, it often is. Mandatory registration is bad because it often has some pretty ugly outcomes. Just ask the Jews how well registration worked out - and in California, registration has already lead to confiscation, in the case of the 'scary looking SKS'. In fact, in no cases has a gun registry ever helped to solve a crime. The Canadians were on the verge of taking their long gun registry down because it hadn't solved any crimes and was consuming ridiculous amounts of money to set up and maintain.

As for owner responsibility in the case of a stolen firearm - well, that's not as clear cut as you might think. Unless you go and masturbate over your firearm collection on a nightly basis (I don't.) you might not notice that a firearm is missing for a while. Put it in terms of cars - if you go to sleep, and someone steals your car to murder someone with it, should you be responsible for what that person did while you were asleep and didn't know your car was missing?

Really? Gun tracking has never help solve any crime? Source, please.



You're being silly. Leaving a firearm and ammo in the open would be the same as leaving an unlocked car on the street with keys in the ignition. If your car gets stolen that way you're at least partially responsible. If your 12yo kid drives off with it you are at least partially responsible for the damage he does on his drive. Locking your car and taking the keys with you provides a significant safety boost with no significant effort. This is the same as having a safe for your firearms, or similar means of securing them. The silliness you mention like wheel clamps would be like locking your safe with the firearm inside in another safe - yes, the safety does improve, but the effort also increases massively.

In short, locking away your firearm equals proper use of your car keys. Failure to do either will leave you at least partially responsible. No need to be silly and ban on-street parking.


Of course your going to pay for damages that YOUR KID cause, because it is your kid. Foolish argument. But lets use your example but with another kid taking your car. should you be responsible for that? That gets a bit dicier, I will admit, but I don't think so.
 
I don't disagree with being able to keep firearms wherever you want, but the scenario Blind_Io posited is silly. It implies:

a) that you keep a loaded gun within arms reach at all times within your home
and)
b) people commonly go around kicking doors down prepared for violent confrontations

If you live in an area where b happens, and where you feel that you need a to happen, infrastructure improvements like window bars and solid doors will probably be more effective than relaxed gun laws.

Maybe, maybe not, but at least you have a choice. Rather than curling into the fetal position and hope/pray that all they do is steal your cash and jewelery. Cause god forbid you actually stand up for yourself against wrongdoing.
Since you're saying that in response to someone drawing a gun on you... if you draw a gun on somebody who already has a gun pointed at you, you're not "standing up for yourself", you're asking to get shot.
 
Last edited:
It is a bit like braking violently while having a piece of piano wire restraining your neck to the headrest of your car seat.
 
Since you're saying that in response to someone drawing a gun on you... if you draw a gun on somebody who already has a gun pointed at you, you're not "standing up for yourself", you're asking to get shot.
No, I'm saying that having a loaded firearm at hand gives you an option. If the big bad guy is pointing a gun at your face, than obviously it would be suicide to go for your gun, so you're really out of options at that point, no different than if you didn't own a gun at all. But from what I hear, most home invasions occur during the day when the occupants are at work and the house is empty, or at night. If it's at night and you keep your firearm in your night stand next to your bed, chances are you'll hear the home invaders elsewhere in your house, giving you the few seconds you need to reach over and get your weapon. You can then make whatever choice you want. Lock your bed room door and yell that you have a gun and you're calling the police, or whatever you decide to do. But you have options. You're not at the mercy of people who obviously have total disregard for the law.

But that's just my feelings on the subject. Helplessness is one of the worst things imaginable, imo.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, maybe not, but at least you have a choice. Rather than curling into the fetal position and hope/pray that all they do is steal your cash and jewelery. Cause god forbid you actually stand up for yourself against wrongdoing.

Let's evaluate two scenarios, in both baddies enter your house forcefully.
Scenario A, guns are easy to get. The baddies have guns, you have guns. The baddies already have their guns in their hands, you may be some distance away from yours. If they want to just rob you then reaching for your gun will get you shot. If they want to shoot you then you will get shot regardless of what you do. Result: Reaching for your gun will get you shot, not reaching for your gun may get you shot.
Scenario B, guns are hard to get. The baddies may have guns, you have no guns. Again, if they want to shoot you then they will just shoot you. If they just want to rob you then they will just rob you. Not having a gun saves you from getting shot in case two.

"Having a choice", "Standing up for yourself", or "Standing up against wrongdoing" may sound all brave, heroic, patriotic, whatever - but it will get you shot.

Of course your going to pay for damages that YOUR KID cause, because it is your kid. Foolish argument. But lets use your example but with another kid taking your car. should you be responsible for that? That gets a bit dicier, I will admit, but I don't think so.

Over here you are partially responsible to what happens with your car if you leave the keys in the ignition. If it is your kid you are properly fucked because the entire blame is on you, if it is someone else you usually only get part of the blame.
In my post the fact that it is your own kid is less important than the fact that you left the keys in the ignition - feel free to substitute "your kid" with "any kid" in your mind. The key word here is part of the blame, usually the kid's parents get most of it.
There appears to be a tendency towards people demanding sources, so here is the corresponding law: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stvo/__14.html - Roughly translated "You have to secure your vehicle against unauthorized use".
I am too lazy to find out if a similar law exists elsewhere, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it did. On top of the law, I'm fairly certain that no insurance will pay for a stolen car if the keys were left in the ignition either :lol:
 
Carried to the extreme you would have to disassemble the car to prevent it from being used by anyone other than you. I know that is absurd, I wrote it that way.
 
To what extent? If someone steals your car, than you obviously failed to secure your vehicle.

To whatever extent is just and reasonable. In this case it usually means take out your keys and lock the doors. You do not need to put your car into a high-security vault.

Carried to the extreme you would have to disassemble the car to prevent it from being used by anyone other than you. I know that is absurd, I wrote it that way.

Duh. Pilots are required to make sure they don't crash their plane, yet the only way to make sure no plane ever crashes is to not build any planes.
 
Last edited:
To whatever extent is just and reasonable. In this case it usually means take out your keys and lock the doors. You do not need to put your car into a high-security vault.
Still seems vague. What if you put the keys on your kitchen counter, but left the backdoor of your house unlocked? Or a window unlocked?

You say that as long as you take "just and reasonable" precautions, that "usually" only involve removing the keys and locking the doors, than you'll be covered. But that's still seems iffy and open to interpretation. Your rough translation doesn't sound vague, it sounds very, very specific. "You HAVE to secure your vehicle against unauthorized use." So if your vehicle gets used without your authorization, then you've failed to secure it. The law should say "You should take reasonable precautions to secure your vehicle against unauthorized use." if that's really the case. Shouldn't it?
 
Still seems vague. What if you put the keys on your kitchen counter, but left the backdoor of your house unlocked? Or a window unlocked?

You say that as long as you take "just and reasonable" precautions, that "usually" only involve removing the keys and locking the doors, than you'll be covered. But that's still seems iffy and open to interpretation. Your rough translation doesn't sound vague, it sounds very, very specific. "You HAVE to secure your vehicle against unauthorized use." So if your vehicle gets used without your authorization, then you've failed to secure it. The law should say "You should take reasonable precautions to secure your vehicle against unauthorized use." if that's really the case. Shouldn't it?

If laws had to specificly cover every eventuality then this rule would be longer than the bible. Thanks to common sense it is one short sentence, or eight words, that's what common sense is for. I know the concept may sound weird to you, but it works well.

Someone fabricating a good duplicate key may use a locked car, did the owner fail to properly secure it if he locked it properly and took the keys? No.
Someone hacking into the car's computer may use a locked car, did the owner fail to properly secure it if he locked it properly and took the keys? No.
Someone may bypass the ignition switch on an older locked car, did the owner fail to properly secure it if he locked it properly and took the keys? No.

Do all these examples need to be put into the law? No.
 
Going back to the home invader senario, I don't know of anyone who just hangs out in their front hall all day. More often than not if you are in the house during a home invasion you are going to have some time (be it a few seconds or a few minutes) to reach for a gun/phone/whatever.
 
If laws had to specificly cover every eventuality then this rule would be longer than the bible. Thanks to common sense it is one short sentence, or eight words, that's what common sense is for. I know the concept may sound weird to you, but it works well.

Someone fabricating a good duplicate key may use a locked car, did the owner fail to properly secure it if he locked it properly and took the keys? No.
Someone hacking into the car's computer may use a locked car, did the owner fail to properly secure it if he locked it properly and took the keys? No.
Someone may bypass the ignition switch on an older locked car, did the owner fail to properly secure it if he locked it properly and took the keys? No.

Do all these examples need to be put into the law? No.

All your examples are based on the assumption that all you need to do is lock the doors and take the keys in order to secure it. I realize there may be something getting lost in the translation, but your "rough" translation of the law is as stringent as possible and leaves nothing open for interpretation/common sense. You're just assuming that taking the keys and locking the doors is good enough. If your law left it open for interpretation, then common sense can be used, but it doesn't. Is says nothing about reasonable precautions. It just says you have to secure it, period.

For example. I rarely lock up my car at home. Because it's locked in the garage. I've even left the keys in my truck for long periods of time. While that might be risky, the way I see it, they would have to break in to steal it. But even if I did lock my vehicles, the keys are still inside my house, so they would still need to break in to steal it. I consider that good enough to secure my vehicles, just to be clear. But then, I don't think we have such a black&white law on our books.
 
Last edited:
But from what I hear, most home invasions occur during the day when the occupants are at work and the house is empty, or at night. If it's at night and you keep your firearm in your night stand next to your bed, chances are you'll hear the home invaders elsewhere in your house, giving you the few seconds you need to reach over and get your weapon. You can then make whatever choice you want. Lock your bed room door and yell that you have a gun and you're calling the police, or whatever you decide to do. But you have options. You're not at the mercy of people who obviously have total disregard for the law.
While that's true and I don't disagree with you, to expand on the "hear intruder, fumble with safe, etc." scenario you and Blind_Io were commenting on, this is why biometric gun safes exist now.

Plus, how silly are you going to look if you come home during a daytime home invasion, and the burglar is pointing your own gun... which you leave in your bedroom door/closet/hidey-hole/etc... at you.
 
While that's true and I don't disagree with you, to expand on the "hear intruder, fumble with safe, etc." scenario you and Blind_Io were commenting on, this is why biometric gun safes exist now.

Plus, how silly are you going to look if you come home during a daytime home invasion, and the burglar is pointing your own gun... which you leave in your bedroom door/closet/hidey-hole/etc... at you.
Not sure silly is the word I would use. :p

Biometric gun safes are pretty cool. I wouldn't mind having one, assuming it works well and is reliable. And you don't lose any fingers trying to get to it. :p
 
Maybe, maybe not, but at least you have a choice. Rather than curling into the fetal position and hope/pray that all they do is steal your cash and jewelery. Cause god forbid you actually stand up for yourself against wrongdoing.

so you would rather go the an-hero route instead of just losing some material possessions?
 
so you would rather go the an-hero route instead of just losing some material possessions?
How should I know? I've never been in that position before. Maybe I would go for my cellphone and call the police and not even think of trying to get my gun. I'm just saying it's an extra option. One of those, "I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it" situations. Just because I have a loaded gun nearby, that doesn't mean I have to use it. All it means is I have more options than someone who doesn't have one. Even if the robbers found the gun, I doubt they would get pissed and shoot me, instead they would probably be happy to score another expensive piece of merchandise.
 
Get a decent apartment door? :lol:

"Draw, fire" implies carrying it on/near you

I can't modify my apartment door.

I do carry my gun.
 
All your examples are based on the assumption that all you need to do is lock the doors and take the keys in order to secure it. I realize there may be something getting lost in the translation, but your "rough" translation of the law is as stringent as possible and leaves nothing open for interpretation/common sense. You're just assuming that taking the keys and locking the doors is good enough. If your law left it open for interpretation, then common sense can be used, but it doesn't. Is says nothing about reasonable precautions. It just says you have to secure it, period.

For example. I rarely lock up my car at home. Because it's locked in the garage. I've even left the keys in my truck for long periods of time. While that might be risky, the way I see it, they would have to break in to steal it. But even if I did lock my vehicles, the keys are still inside my house, so they would still need to break in to steal it. I consider that good enough to secure my vehicles, just to be clear. But then, I don't think we have such a black&white law on our books.

If you don't like my translation any German-speaking person is free to offer a better one, or you can make do with Google's attempt: "Motor vehicles must be secured against unauthorized use."

I never said locking the doors and taking the keys is the only method of securing a car, I said that is the usual way of securing a car. If you have a locking garage that will do just fine against burglars. However, if your kids crash your truck through the garage door and the insurance guy finds out you left the keys in the ignition... the law I quoted does not target thieves alone, it also targets road safety. One of the implications of it is that you need to make sure someone has a driving license before you lend him your car, else you let someone use your car without authorization (of the law/DMV).

Most laws are open to interpretation. There would be significantly fewer lawyers around if they weren't.

I can't modify my apartment door.

That's sad, because contrary to a gun that would protect you from home invasions.

I do carry my gun.

Then your fumbling-around-with-a-safe-argument is moot. If you carry it with you at all times there is no need to fumble.
 
Last edited:
Top