iCarryUtah – Firearms and Utah Concealed Carry

So – now that the University of Utah is looking for a new president, GOUtah and others are pushing the board of regents to find a more friendly choice.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52613767-78/gun-law-campus-university.html.csp

As things sit right now – the University of Utah has no problem with legal, permitted concealed carry.  This, of course, was only after the legislature had to spank them repeatedly into respecting the law of the land.

However, if you open carry on campus, the campus police will confront you, and if you won’t conceal it they will force you to leave the campus.  There is nothing illegal about open carry on campus, but they won’t tolerate it.  Keep that word in mind – tolerate.

From the article in the SL Tribune…

“In an interview last year before departing for the University of Washington, Young stressed that the U. had no intention of singling out lawfully armed people or even tracking who holds concealed-carry permits. But open display of firearms poses a menace to public safety and creates an environment that is not conducive to academic pursuits, officials say.”

Now, I’d love to know how the open display of a firearm poses a menace to public safety?  A gun in a holster isn’t like a dog on a leash.  A dog on a leash can still lunge, bite, and threaten of it’s own volition.  A gun in a holster is an inanimate object.  It’s no more lethal or threatening than a car in a parking space, or a chair sitting on the ground.  If someone was to decide to use any of these, they could be employed in a lethal manner.

The real problem is an irrational fear.  A fear of an inanimate object.

They presuppose that anyone carrying a gun openly is going to go crazy at any moment.  They don’t realize that there is a very high likelihood that anyone possessing a gun and willing to carry it openly is most likely a law-abiding citizen.

In fact, if they want to carry it openly and loaded in Utah, they need to have a Concealed Firearm Permit – meaning that they have a criminal background check run on them every day.  Otherwise, an openly carried firearm must be unloaded – making it mo more dangerous than a heavy handbag, backpack, umbrella, motorcycle helmet, or any number of objects commonly carried on campus every day.

Police carry their firearms openly (plus often one or more concealed too), and this doesn’t seem to bother them.  Yet, in the State of Utah, we have had uniformed police sexually assault women, and perform other violent violations of the law.  Yet, they don’t have a problem with them carrying openly.  They make assumptions about the character of LEO’s (Law Enforcement Officers) versus Concealed Firearm Permit holders that are incorrect.

I’d like to submit the following.

Here in the Western USA – especially in places like Utah and Idaho where the Constitution is generally more respected than it is in places like New York, Massachusetts, and Maryland – it is not against the norm for people here to carry firearms openly or concealed for lawful purposes.

Therefore, if they plan to come here for an education, they need to condition themselves to expect this.

If they have an irrational fear of firearms, then perhaps Utah isn’t the best place on Earth for them to be.  They may be much more comfortable in places where it is against the law to do so.  They just need to keep in mind that in places where it is against the law, they have a sure sign that the Constitution isn’t as honored there either.

If they suffer from the misguided belief that openly carried firearms create an “environment that is not conducive to academic pursuits”, they don’t want to come here.  It has been said that an armed society is a polite society.  That’s very true.

But it also means that if the members of that society take upon themselves the responsibility for their own protection, then they most likely respect not only the 2nd Amendment, but all of the others too.  That means that they are more likely to honor and protect the rights others have to free speech, even if they don’t personally agree with what the person is saying.  And, they have the ability to actually PROTECT that right from those that might chose to ignore the rest of the Constitution.

Keep in mind that it was the intention of the Founding Fathers that the entirety of the Bill of Rights would not be infringed – that’s why it’s there.  But when you look at the context, and in the commentaries left by the Founders, it’s clear that the Second Amendment was given the additional, special protection accorded by the line “shall not be infringed” so that it enables us – as a last resort – to protect all of the others

Rather than fearing either concealed or open carry, they should be cherishing them.  Because it means that not only is the Constitution being respected and implemented, but that WE THE PEOPLE have the ABILITY to protect it at all times.

Remember that I pointed out the word “tolerate” before?  We hear a lot about “tolerance”.  I’d submit that people that truly honor the Constitution and carry firearms for their defense are about the most tolerant people out there.

I might not like what someone is saying during a speech, but they have a right to say it.  And as a legally Armed American, I can defend their right to say it in the event that  someone decides to deprive them of it.  That’s a big difference between America and most of the other nations on the Earth.

God bless America.  And please, stop trying to deprive us of our rights.  Those rights we exercise may someday preserve your right to say what you want, worship as you want, or live as you want – as they have done before.

First, I’d like to reference a couple of videos that I have referred to before…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related

Among the things that you will learn from those videos – which feature an Attorney and a Police Officer telling you….

The police and prosecutors CAN and WILL use everything you say against you – including twisting it around in any way possible to make it look bad for you.

If they already consider you a “person of interest”, you can gain NOTHING by talking to them.

The police can and will lie to you (and to the media and to the public).

In recent weeks we have seen the West Valley City Police Department go out and “search” for Susan Powell near Elko, serve a search warrant at the present home of Josh Powell in Washington State, and now “search” again for Susan Powell near Topaz Mountain.

The first time it was easy to tell it was bogus.

No calls for volunteers to assist with the search

Over such a large area that would have been very smart.  Plus, local volunteers would know the area much better than LEO’s from hundreds of miles away.

They invited the media and cameras along.

Would they have done that if they REALLY expected to find her body out there?

They were going WAY too fast in the examples where they had the media photo them on their ATV’s.

A real, serious search would have been much more coordinated and meticulous.

They said that they photographed and documented all of the mine shafts they cleared.

Police don’t photograph locations that have no evidence.  They only care if there IS evidence.   The photos and everything were for the benefit of the media and the public to make it look good.

Many of us pointed these things out when asked by the local media.  That was a red herring, a show to see if Josh Powell reacted in some way.

What they were doing was playing the “Hot, Warm, Cold” game, and watching to see if Josh freaked out or otherwise told them “hot”.  They then went and took his computers and other items to see what they could find out.

Then this week they start another “search” out near Topaz Mountain.  This time they did it a little differently…

No media out on the search with them – they are in the area but not with the actual search party.

This makes it look more real.

They make a show of having “cadaver dogs” out there with them.

Are all of those dog teams real cadaver dogs, or only one or two real teams and the rest out there to make it look good?  They learned from the last show that it wasn’t good enough, and that people didn’t buy it.

They claim to have “found bones”.

This was the test.  Did Josh freak out?  Apparently not.

They initially said that the ME was on the way, then they said that the ME would be out the next day.

Then they said that the ME would come out if an archeologist determined that the bones were modern – versus cowboy, pioneer, or Native American.

 If they really thought they had something, I wouldn’t see the ME waiting.  They wouldn’t want to risk anything.  The ME would have been out there in a heartbeat – as well as the FBI, etc.

Then they say that there aren’t really any bones (when they already said there were) and now it’s just the hit from the cadaver dogs.

But digging hasn’t revealed anything yet. Honestly, I don’t know if I believe there was even a hit by the dogs.

It makes you have to question if there really was a hit of any sort, or if these are yet more – well, lies – designed to try to get a reaction out of Josh Powell.  And that brings us to the crux of the issue.

Is doing what they seem to be – playing this “hot, warm, cold” game – fair to the Powell family?

Is this going to end up eroding the confidence that the public has in the West Valley City PD?

Her father flew to Utah when the “discovery” was announced.  If they are indeed lying about this to try to get a reaction from Josh, this is certainly cruel to her family.

Some people will say “Well, if Josh would just talk to the police, he could save them the heartache”.  To those people I will refer you to the videos I mentioned at the beginning of the article.  What if he is innocent?  Talking to them won’t help him.

They have the responsibility to focus on ALL avenues of investigation, they can’t hold off on the others until he is ruled out.  They make it sound like they can’t do anything else until he talks to them.  That’s incorrect.

The overall bigger issue is this – if it turns out that this was indeed another red herring from the WVCPD, is it eroding public confidence in them?  Can we really trust in what the police tell us?

I guess that the good thing that can come from this is bringing to the public awareness that the police CAN and WILL lie to you, to the media, and to the public in general.  Now that the public is aware of this, it might make them better jurors.

Knowing what you know now, take a look at this article again…

http://blog.icarryutah.com/2010/05/31/probable-cause-statements-information-and-belief/

Next time you hear something reported or hear about a Probable Cause Statement, remember that the media is reporting what the police told them.  Is it all true?  Is any of it even factually correct?  Most likely not.   Keep an open mind.

From http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/13/house-weighs-bill-to-make-gun-permits-valid-across-state-lines/?test=latestnews

Lawmakers are considering a House bill that would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines.

Although many states have entered into voluntary agreements, there is no nationwide framework for honoring permits and licenses uniformly. A bipartisan bill, co-authored by Reps. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Heath Shuler, D-N.C., aims to change that.

Supporters say the measure would not create a federal licensing system, but would require that all states recognize lawfully issued permits — regardless of where they were issued. Gun rights advocacy groups say it’s the only way to make sure that lawful gun owners’ Second Amendment rights are guaranteed when they travel away from their home states.

The actual bill is H.R. 822:

National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 – Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a person who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state, and who is not prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm under federal law, to carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state.

Here are the specifics:

A BILL

 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This Act may be cited as the ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’.

 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

 

The Congress finds the following:

 

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

 

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

 

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

 

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

 

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

 

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

 

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

 

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

 

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

 

‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

 

‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that–

 

‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

 

‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

 

‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

 

‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

 

‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.

 

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

 

‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

 

(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

 

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

It basically says that if you have a CFP in your home state, you can carry in any other state that offers a CFP for their own residents – and that you are subject to their laws and carry restrictions while there.

How does this relate to Utah?

For visitors to Utah, it doesn’t do anything.  Utah already recognizes permits issued by ANY State or County in the USA…

 UCA 76-10-523

(2) The provisions of Subsections 76-10-504(1)(a), (1)(b), and Section 76-10-505 do not apply to any person to whom a permit to carry a concealed firearm has been issued:
(a) pursuant to Section 53-5-704; or
(b) by another state or county.

For Utah CFP holders, it would mandate that other states recognize OUR permits when traveling.  While the Utah CFP is one of the most recognized permits out there, there are a few states that do not.  This includes Nevada and New Mexico – and also states like Oregon which issues permits for Oregon residents but doesn’t recognize other permits.

From http://licenseinfo.oregon.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=license_seng&link_item_id=14705

Generally there is no reciprocity with other states concealed handgun licenses. If you want to carry a concealed handgun in Oregon, you will need an Oregon Concealed Handgun License.

There is a good deal of debate on this – even in the firearms community. Some people are very concerned that it’s an in-road to federal control of concealed carry.  But when you read the bill, it is a VERY positive thing. It is a good thing, and is a logical extension of the McDonald decision (http://www.icarryutah.com/McDonald.pdf).

It’s not the federal government trying to get involved in issuing permits.  It is them saying  that Concealed Firearm Permits are given full faith and credit in other states.

In my opinion, it is a good thing.  Please, encourage your legislators to support H.R. 822.

Here is a link to the news…

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/state/story/Teenage-boy-in-critical-condtion-after-accident/CkqvGOHmZUiSfRcWR-wVuQ.cspx

In hearing from someone that was there, it sounds like his chair swiveled out of the way as he was transitioning to a seated position.  He brought the gun in close to his body as he fell, but his finger was still on the trigger.  As he hit the ground, it pivoted up and he pulled the trigger.  The entry was just under the chin, and the exit was through the top of his head.

The last report that I have is that he is still alive, thanks to the efforts of the gentleman on scene that began CPR immediately.

I was looking at a number of forums, and there are people expressing everything from sympathy, to outrage that “anyone would allow a 15 year old to handle a monster 45”.

When we take a step back and look at the situation, he made the mistake of having his finger on the trigger when he had not made the decision to fire.  That’s the essential rule that he broke.

It’s true that as he was falling, he allowed the firearm to point at something that he didn’t want to destroy.  That is another rule technically broken, but he was in the act of falling.  Had he not had his finger on the trigger, he would not have been shot.

Those rules work together.

I have drilled those rules into my nephew and others that I have had the opportunity to teach.  Every time at the range or in a class.  They work together to keep you and others safe.

In this case, a very tragic accident happened.  But we have to accept that sometimes, in a free society, bad things can and do happen.  It doesn’t make guns bad, it doesn’t make the father an evil person, and it doesn’t make the son an idiot.  He and his father were enjoying an activity together.  That’s what he remembers now, I’m sure.

I do want to address the people referring to that “monster 45”.

If you have never shot a gun, a .45ACP may indeed seem intimidating.  But in practice, many people notice LESS perceived recoil shooting a .45ACP than they do shooting a .40 S&W.  There is more of a “pop” from a .40 S&W.

I think I first shot a .45 when I was about 8, but I might have been younger.  My nephew shot a .40 S&W at 10.  They are not monsters.  In fact, some of the most fun I have had with my nephew was when we were out shooting and I was able to watch the joy in his eyes as he practiced and developed his ability to hit whatever he aimed at.

This father was not negligent in allowing his son to shoot a .45 ACP.  His son made a mistake – but it was as he was falling down.  Yes, if he had obeyed all of the rules of firearm safety he would not have been injured.  But he didn’t.  It still does not make them idiots, and it doesn’t make guns bad.

Thankfully we live in a free society, and sometimes bad things happen in a free society.  I’d rather that be the case, than that we outlaw guns, or outlaw anyone under 18 from ever shooting them as I have seen suggested.

Hopefully he will fully recover.  Our prayers go out to them, and we hope they can remember the joy of being together more than the pain of this incident.

I got quite a few positive responses to my recommendation to boycott Lehi while their PD was conducting their police state checkpoint.  Thank you to all that chose to avoid Lehi.  This sort of thing – done in the name of “safety” – can’t be allowed to continue.

I checked the Lehi PD Website, and found it to be so wonderfully up to date.  But they did have some statistics relating to the last time they did this “sobriety checkpoint” in 2009.

It said that between 10 PM and 3 AM they stopped a total of 826 cars.  They found the following violations…

7 alcohol arrests

16 misdemeanor arrests

6 DUI arrests

11 traffic violations

8 arrests for outstanding warrants

5 vehicle impounds for improperly registered vehicles.

That means that they impeded 826 vehicles and only caught 13 vehicles with alcohol-related offenses.  They caught 40 other offenses unrelated to alcohol.  53 total offenses.

That means that they impeded 773 law-abiding citizens in their police-state effort, which was ostensibly for “safety”.  Chad Smith (Lehi Police Chief) went on to say…

“Impaired driving is unacceptable and we, as a police department, are committed to get these type of drivers off the road. We are going to continue this type of proactive enforcement to make this a safer community”

So Chad, you see stopping and impeding the lawful travel of 773 people as acceptable?

Sorry Chad.  While you may be “legal” in doing so, you are morally and ethically WRONG.  Please stop this kind of activity in Lehi.  Have your officers OBSERVE, and then act when the observation warrants it.  We don’t want a nazi-like police state here in Lehi.  It makes it unfriendly and uncomfortable.  We aren’t supposed to feel like that here in America.

If you enjoy doing this, there are plenty of places you can go to practice this type of enforcement.  I understand that this is still acceptable in many of the Balkan states, and in much of the Middle East.  Please, don’t do this here again.