January 20, 2010

New Utah Law Would Allow Open Carry

SALT LAKE CITY — Newly proposed legislation here would be a green light for concealed-gun owners to openly carry firearms and, if threatened, draw or exhibit their weapons and verbally threaten deadly force.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, said HB78 clarifies existing law with "affirmative language" that would provide gun owners another option to defend themselves or others around them.

"This allows a gun owner to not have to go all the way and actually fire his gun," Sandstrom said. "This would still be the very last resort, however. It doesn't give you the right to just flash a gun at anyone who makes you mad."

The proposal officially allows Utahns to openly carry firearms and inform others that they are carrying a gun, not currently illegal, but not codified in law. The bill only applies to individuals who have concealed weapons permits, and "brandishing" a gun for anything less than self-defense will still be illegal.

To read the bill, click here.

Comments (15)

QUOTE: "...you're only proving Freud right when you open carry..."

Yep. You sure "went there," didn’t you? Too bad you're wrong, though.

The proof is out there if you care to investigate. Freud said that a FEAR of weapons is a sign of sexuality immaturity. The man or woman with a holstered pistol on their hip isn’t likely to have “a fear of weapons,” now are they?

Hoplophobes have gleefully mis-quoted Freud for decades. Isn't it about time that they properly quoted him? But really... why should we place much value in the ramblings of a coked-out Austrian who made numerous, incredible statements like this:

" America is a mistake, admittedly a gigantic mistake, but a mistake nevertheless."

Sigmund Freud

"Open carry" shouldn't scare anyone with more than a room-temp IQ. Wouldn’t it be more logical to fear that which is unseen, rather than that which IS seen?

ANYONE can carry concealed. Just because their weapon is not visible doesn't mean they're not armed.

Shouldn't these theoretical people that you mention be even more scared of that?
“OMG! What if that person over there has a concealed weapon! And that person over THERE...AND OVER THERE, TOO!”

It's so simple, even a liberal should be able to understand it.

Posted by: RackEmPunk | March 5, 2010 11:32 AM    Report this comment

It's good to remember the definition of a "permit"

A permit give someone the permission to do something that would normally be considered illegal.

Long ago, I decided that I'd never ask government for permission to keep and bear arms...

Posted by: RackEmPunk | January 24, 2010 11:59 AM    Report this comment

"...the law makers still want you to leave and run from someone breaking into you home instead of protecting it and family and self."

That's true, bear, good point. I obeyed the law, sort of. I left my home and ran out of California!

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 23, 2010 5:30 PM    Report this comment

Utah and other states that have open carry are doing a good thing as I see it. The bad guy knows it ain't safe to do any crimes with out big problems. Open carry is not bad if any place that doesn't want trouble, say a bar, has a gun check, like alot of clubs in the old days used to have a coat check room, check in your gun and check it out when you leave, if you haven't started any trouble and aren't to drunk to use common sence. Also these laws gives the people alot more protection than the ones in Commiefornia does, the bad guys here have it made because the law is made for them not the people that obey them, the law makers still want you to leave and run from someone breaking into you home instead of protecting it and family and self.
God Bless America and Our Troops Past, Present and Future.
Keeping to My Oath, Locked, Loaded, and Keeping My Powder Dry

Posted by: bear1 | January 23, 2010 12:59 PM    Report this comment

The Utah law apparently has nothing to do with carrying a firearm, either concealed or openly. What it does is allow current and future CCW holders to draw their weapon when the need arises, "advise" the potential target that he/she is in their sights before actually firing a round. The point is to avoid even the potential that the permit holder would be arrested/prosecuted for criminally brandishing a weapon or criminally issuing threats aginst the target.
It's stupid, in a way, that a permit holder could use a weapon, kill someone and (rightfully) not be prosecuted because the homicide is justifiable. However without this law if that same permit holder gets the bad guy to surrender by displaying a weapon and telling him it will be used he could go to jail.
Ain't the law wonderful? Who needs logic?

Posted by: Visigoth52 | January 23, 2010 10:41 AM    Report this comment

Most of us will improvise, adapt, and overcome any ridiculous law we see fit. I agree with Canovack, concealed carry is merely self preservation at it's best regardless of the law, codified or otherwise.

Posted by: Sharps | January 23, 2010 12:45 AM    Report this comment

AS A FORMER AZ DEPUTY SHERIFF IN THE 60S AND 70S
I NEVER RAN INTO A PROBLEM WITH OPEN CARRY AND WE DID NOT HAVE THE LAWS THAT ARE IN EFFECT TODAY, I STILL FAVOR OPEN CARRY AND CC IF YOU CHOOSE. I USE DIFFERENT LOGIC WHAT YOU SEE YOU CAN BE IMPOWERED BY"""""""""""""".

Posted by: BONNER | January 21, 2010 3:05 PM    Report this comment

As a former police academy training instructor and a retired detective
sergeant, I believe the term "...not codified in law" may refer to English
Common Law. In some states, there is
both statutory law (passed by the
legislature) and Common Law, passed along in our traditions from its origin in Englamd. When I first became a police officer about 45
years ago, we enforced both, using
whichever was best deemed best appropriate to prosecute the case.
Eventually, our state passed new laws
("codified") that totally replaced the English Common Law with our state's statutory laws. Personally,
I am not sure this was an improvement. So, yes, there can be
laws that are not "codified" in your state if they still use Common Law
as an adjunct to those passed by your
legislature.

Posted by: JiminTenn | January 21, 2010 1:37 PM    Report this comment

Open Carrying a SAA in a tooled leather belt is less threatening to the general public, especially in rural areas. There is something about the appearance of modern guns that frighten people unfamiliar with guns. A SAA is a good gun in a fight as long as you don't have to reload.

Posted by: Mister E | January 21, 2010 1:09 PM    Report this comment

While I agree that everyone of sound character and mind is guaranteed the right to keep and
BEAR arms, I still must give thought to the best approach for BEARING arms. Perhaps at a time when open carry is common enough that it doesn't draw unwanted attention, the sight of firearms on the belts of armed citizens may not garner panic from the liberal elements in our communities. Right now, however, I believe concealed carry is still the best option. I have stated this many times in the past, that I favor concealed carry because the bad guys don't know who is, and who isn't, armed. This generally leads to a more polite, courteous, and safer society. Everyone, even the hoplophobes, benefit.

Posted by: canovack | January 21, 2010 11:38 AM    Report this comment

QUOTE: "The proposal officially allows Utahns to openly carry firearms and inform others that they are carrying a gun, not currently illegal, but not codified in law."

Not codified in law?

HELLO? 2nd Amendment? US Constitution? "Shall not be infringed?"

Ring a bell?

Posted by: RackEmPunk | January 21, 2010 11:28 AM    Report this comment

QUOTE: "The proposal officially allows Utahns to openly carry firearms and inform others that they are carrying a gun, not currently illegal, but not codified in law."

Not codified in law?

HELLO? 2nd Amendment? US Constitution? "Shall not be infringed?"

Ring a bell?

Posted by: RackEmPunk | January 21, 2010 11:28 AM    Report this comment

QUOTE: "The proposal officially allows Utahns to openly carry firearms and inform others that they are carrying a gun, not currently illegal, but not codified in law."

Not codified in law?

HELLO? 2nd Amendment? US Constitution? "Shall not be infringed?"

Ring a bell?

Posted by: RackEmPunk | January 21, 2010 11:26 AM    Report this comment

"victim propagation zones"? I like that. Very apropos. Of course a psycho-killer will seek out those places where everyone is defenseless.

I carry concealed there anyway. I'd rather defend myself against charges of carrying where I shouldn't than have to explain hiding behind a desk while a bunch of kids got shot.

Posted by: david b | January 21, 2010 10:46 AM    Report this comment

New Utah Law Would Allow Open Carry

Except in authorized criminal-empowerment, victim-propagation zones, like malls, churches, schools, and colleges. All the usual places where mass murders have taken place ever since Charles Whitman opened fire from the UT-Austin tower in 1966. It was the combination of the Kennedy brother's assassinations, the Texas tower massacre, and the presidency of LBJ that led directly to the gun control act of 1968 that we still suffer under today.

Gaviota

Posted by: Lee W | January 19, 2010 4:52 PM    Report this comment

Add your comments ...

New to Gun Tests? Register for Free!

Already Registered? Log In