RSS

An Interesting Amendment

20 Feb

Utah H.B. 473, currently before the State Legislature, has caused quite a stir among the GFW’s* at the University of Utah. The bill would amend the State Concealed Carry laws. Here is the text:

76-10-501. Definitions.
(3) “Concealed firearm permit” means a permit issued pursuant to Section 53-5-704 that permits, but does not require, concealment of the firearm on the permittee.

Here is the fuss. The University of Utah lawyers are claiming that this would allow any CCW carrier to openly carry on campus. And after the broo ha ha over the last several years (Google it your self. Looking for the information just makes me angry), this is just more drama and more of my future tuition money being wasted.

My problem with the University’s “reading/understanding” of the proposed amendment is that openly carrying would defeat the purpose of a concealed weapons permit. This, obviously, is not the intention of the amendment, or else the State would be saying: “‘Concealed firearm permit’ means a permit issued pursuant to Section 53-5-704 that permits open carry of the firearm on the permittee.”

As I understand the amendment, it is trying, though poorly, to define what a concealed carry permit is. The problematic word is concealment. I’ve been mulling it over and can’t quite seem to find the correct word with which to replace it. The las half of the sentence would need to be reworded. Something like: that permits, but does not require, carry of a concealed weapon by the permitee.

That is the point of the amendment. However, with it’s current wording it does give some leeway in the event that, if a GFW* happens to spot a concealed weapon, legally carried by the owner, they can not claim that it was “not properly concealed,” and take legal action.

For example, lets say that you’re wearing a conventional strong side belt holster, and a jacket. You get to class, sit down, and part of your jacket snags on the desk, briefly exposing your firearm. Under current law, as I understand it, anyone who sees it can file a suit that you brandished your weapon. Yet, with the new amendment, GFW’s* would have a more difficult time doing this.

Obviously, if you intentionally brandished your weapon then anyone seeing it should take action because that is not a responsible act for someone holding a CCW and carrying a weapon. It will be interesting, or annoying, to see what happens next.

———

GFW is a term coined by Kim du Toit meaning Gun Fearing Wussy, also known as a Hoplophobe.

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 20, 2008 in Guns, Local, Politics

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: