Bill to end concealed weapon permit requirement ... Utah up next

I didn't read the article, but...

If Utah becomes a constitutional carry state, it would mean they no longer issue CCW permits...which also means any they have issued become void.

Which also also means any states with which they previously had a reciprocity agreement no longer can honor the Utah CCW permit.

Okay, maybe it's in the article. Off to read!

I am just waiting for my New Nevada permit which I need in order to renew my Utah permit.

I was caught in the COVID mess on renewing my Nevada. At the moment I have no valid Nevada permit, but do hold a presumably valid Utah permit.

I'm not certain if my non-resident Utah permit is wholly dependent on my holding a valid Nevada permit. My Utah permit expires in March.

Yep it's a foregone conclusion for constitutional carry in the Beehive state. I was going to post something about it a couple of days ago but spaced it. The arguments against were absurd. Like a three-hour class and the fee make a responsible gun owner, right?

My gun club offers classes for the Utah license once or twice a year. It doesn't make much sense to me. Even with my MA license, the UT license still wouldn't allow me to legally drive from MA to the free states without relying on FOPA -- not something I'm willing to do.

I hate the term too, it’s not really an accurate description of what it is.

Not to go off topic, but I never realized Utah was called "The Beehive State".

I keep a NH Non Resident license just for reciprocity in PA -- I used to have to go to Philly a couple times a year.

I never realized some of you (at least one) actually read my replies!

Carrying without a permit being required.

They’d be wrong. The Constitution says nothing about permits. Also, the Supreme Court, created by the Constitution for purposes of interpreting the Constitution, has held that a State requiring a permit is NOT Unconstitutional. As such, one could argue that one carrying with a permit is also carrying in accordance with the American Constitution. 

Hence, calling permitless carrying “Constitutional carry” is a snappy little phrase, certainly easier on the tongue than “carrying without the requirement of a permit”, but in my opinion, it’s not accurate. 

Maybe "uninfringed carry".

From a legal perspective I would say (as a non-legal mind) ... It amounts to this:

If you are can legally own it then how you carry it is non of "the law's" business.

If I am accurate on that, "uninfringed carry" might be about correct.

Agreed on that 100%.

In most states its all about "how" you can carry it, not so much "if" you can carry it.

Memory tells me from when I lived in California between 1979 and 1989, the law allowed you to carry the thing, but you could not have a magazine it it. Meaning you could only carry a completely unloaded firearm without a permit to carry.

It's possible I'm off a bit on some various details on that, but that's what memory is telling me.

Edited to add:  Memory also tells me that it could NOT be concealed in any way.

Of course the bad guys do what they want with no concern for the current state law(s).