Utah's gun rights activists are breaking ranks with the National Rifle Association for the first time in recent memory and instead are joining forces with gun-control advocates such as Sen. Scott McCoy. [More]Well, that doesn't sound good. Some are asking whether the locals are throwing gun owners under the bus.
As always, the devil is in the details, and if we don't consider those details, we're likely to draw skewed conclusions:
SB 96 would completely eliminate the issuance of Utah concealed-weapon permits to non-Utah residents...SB 96 would also change "concealed weapon" (the term that’s used in the current law) to "concealed firearm", which means that a permit-holder would no longer be able to carry other types of concealed weapons...SB 96 could also be interpreted to restrict you to carrying only one firearm. Which means that you couldn’t carry a backup gun...I don't care about the retired "Only One" provision. I think they should eat off the same plate as the rest of us.
Look, I really don't care about permits, either. I post this because I see a lining up in two camps, and I see the highest volume coming from the most influential one--that championing the Fairfax agenda. I just think it's important that gun owners have access to all sides of the argument before making up their minds.
This isn't the first time a bill with dangerous repercussions was being pushed through over the objections of local activists. Is it?
UPDATE:
While the principle of looking at all details still applies, I will note I did not.
The newspaper article refers to HB 204.
Hurrying through, which is no excuse, the GoUtah! alert I thought was relevant referred to SB 96.
They're two different bills--the House bill dealing with instructors, the Senate bill dealing with permitees.
I see nothing on the GoUtah! site to flesh out further details for their position. That doesn't change my bottom line--we need to know what it is and why before deciding whether or not we agree with them.
Anyway, I apologize for the confusion this may have caused. Corrections are never fun.
2 comments:
As with so many things, the unintended consequence of the whole "permit" thing has tended to corrupt and compromise the otherwise excellent basic training provided by the NRA (much as I disagree with their political arm).
As a certified NRA instructor, I am very careful to maintain the highest standards of the NRA program, and offer the very best instruction possible to each and every student.
But I have been hearing complaints on some of the fora I visit about instructors who do not and some who are pushing their own agenda, especially those who are insisting that CC is the only "legal" way to carry!
If a state is going to demand a "permit," they ought to issue it only to their own citizens with appropriate reciprocity.
I insist that all of my students find out for themselves exactly what the CC "laws" are here before they start to carry. We go over it in class, but I am clear that it might not be the latest information, and that they are responsible for knowing it themselves. Can't go wrong that way.
And, of course, all this would be moot if the "permits" became just a faded memory of the "bad old days."
Say, I don't suppose any of those Utah instructors would have some sort of financial stake in seeing two-thirds of their competition eliminated, would they?
Post a Comment