Utah State Senate Passes Bill Allowing Loaded Concealed Weapons Without Permits (VIDEO)

Utah’s State Senate approved SB 256, which would allow people to carry concealed weapons without having to obtain permits to do so. This bill was sponsored by David Hinkins and Paul Ray. Not surprisingly, Hinkins received campaign contributions from the NRA. Supposedly, Ray did not.

Utah gun laws currently allow openly carried weapons, but once they are concealed it’s illegal. David Hinkins is having none of that. At least if you’re over 21 years old. So, if you’re old enough to drink alcohol in public, he wants you to be able to be packing heat as well. What’s more, it’s currently illegal for said weapons to be loaded. Hinkins wants to make sure that not only can you hide your weapon, it can be fully loaded.

There is hope that this bill will be vetoed by Governor Gary Herbert. He vetoed a similar bill in 2013 and sees no reason to sign this into law, saying, “I see no change that has happened … since we vetoed the bill before that would cause us not to veto the bill now,” adding, “I think the laws we have on the books now are working very well. There’s not really any problem out there.”

In 2013 Governor Herbert also stated:

Utah’s permitting system has been in place for decades, and in its current form for more than 15 years. In that time, it has become a national model. As a gun owner and concealed firearm permit holder, I understand the value of the permit, both to firearm owners and to the public at large. As a State, we must exercise extreme care that we not impose undue burdens on the right to bear arms, but I have yet to receive any credible evidence that Utah’s current permit process constitutes a hardship.

As I’ve said before, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. It’s served us very well. I certainly believe it doesn’t inhibit our ability to bear arms. Law enforcement certainly likes it and it helps them keep peace. And so, I just decided it wasn’t good policy to change, so I vetoed the bill.

Remember, this is from the state that bars guns on campus, but had threats of mass shootings if Anita Sarkeesian was allowed to make her presentation on feminism and the video game industry. She canceled because police reportedly refused to pat down or use metal detectors to prevent concealed weapons from entering the event.

WATCH this video from Salt Lake Tribune, which discusses how both residents of Utah and those from out of state are flocking (more than quadrupled) to Utah to obtain their conceal carry permits for only $51-which are often honored out-of-state. Approximately 62% of the permits issued are for those who live outside of Utah.

Featured image from Salt Lake Tribune.

Send to Kindle
  • Catherine Halsey

    Believe it or not, free carry isn’t going to lead to the downfall of America. It’s been law in Vermont for years, and we’re one of the safest states

    • Bob Blaylock

        Per the Second Amendment, it’s actually the law everywhere in the United States and anywhere under the jurisdiction thereof.  It is only not so in practice because of corrupt governments at all levels that refuse to obey the Constitution.

  • Bob Blaylock

      It;s sad that any state thinks it even needs such a law.  If the Constitution were properly obeyed, there would be no such thing as a permit to own or carry an arm.  By definition, one does not need a permit to exercise an essential right.

    • Dawn’s Early Light

      Sorry, man, but no “right” is absolute. There are restrictions on all of them.
      Unfortunately, gun owners who actually understand that are shouted down by whiners who think the Second Amendment was copied directly out of the Bible or something.

      • Bob Blaylock

          The point where a right may legitimately be abridged, is where it comes into conflict with another right.  As Will Rogers put it, “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.”

          There is not any right that is violated, by allowing an honest citizen to acquire, possess, or carry a firearm; therefore, no legitimate reason for government to interfere with the exercise of this right.

        • Dawn’s Early Light

          That sounds really good, and I mostly agree with it. But, unpermitted weapons means there has been absolutely no background check on the person carrying the weapon, and a lot of people feel it is their “right” to feel comfortable in public places without someone carrying a firearm that has not even been through the ridiculously lax checks it takes to get a permit.

          • Bob Blaylock

              What’s wrong with people being allowed to exercise an essential right, without first having to prove that they should be allowed to do so?  A key defining characteristic of a right is that one doesn’t need to obtain permission to exercise it, and one cannot be denied it without there being a very good reason for that denial.

              There is no such “‘right’ to feel comfortable in public places ”, and no excuse therein to violate what is clearly a right.  If someone finds it “uncomfortable” to be in the presence of someone who is carrying a gun, then that is his own problem.  He has no more right, on that basis, to demand that his countrymen be denied the right to bear arms, than he has a right to demand that all black people be kept out of sight because he doesn’t like being around them.

          • Dawn’s Early Light

            So, you are okay with felons carrying guns around civilians?
            Gotcha.
            And the false equivalence of public safety over racism didn’t really sway me.

          • Bob Blaylock

              Once a felon has served his time—“paid his debt to society”—he doesn’t owe society any further punishment or denial of his rights.  Nothing in the Constitution even hints at any authority, on the part of government, to discriminate among free citizens who may or may not be allowed to exercise all of their Constitutional rights; and the Fourteenth Amendment rather explicitly denies any such authority.

              Criminals who persist in violating or endangering the rights of others need to be permanently removed from free society.  The failure to do so is not an excuse for violating the rights of those who do not fall into this category.  It is no coincidence that the same side of the political aisle that is so eager to violate the right of free Americans to possess the means to defend themselves against such criminals is also the side that is most opposed to doing what needs to be done to remove these criminals from free society.  This only goes to show whose side they are on, which is not the side of honest citizens.

              And let us please stop repeating or giving any credence to the blatant lie that gun control is about public safety.  It never was, and never will be.  The first gun control laws were specifically aimed at blacks, and were enacted for the purpose of protecting the “right” of Ku Klux Klan members and similar thugs to attack blacks in relative safety.  Later, along came Timothy Sullivan, a criminal gangster turned politician, who authored New York’s Sullivan Act—the progenitor of all modern gun control laws—which he crafted specifically to give an advantage to his own gang and its allies against rival gangs and against honest citizens.

              Gun control has never been about protecting honest citizens.  You do not protect a people by removing from them the means to protect themselves, especially when the criminal and tyrants against whom they need protection retain the ability to obtain the weapons that are now denied their prospective victims.

              Gun control always has been, and always will be, about protecting the interests of tyrants and violent criminals, to the detriment of honest citizens.  If you support any such laws, then that tells us whose side you are on, and it is not the side of honest citizens.

          • cargosquid

            Very well said.

          • Dawn’s Early Light

            Sure man.