Anyone been denied their Utah Permit?

[Rogue Status]

I am taking the Utah class with GOAL in a few weeks, from what I have read I should have no issues with being granted my permit. I have my MA LTC now. Was just curious if anyone has not been granted the permit after taking the class and applying.

 

[Horrible]

I am taking the Utah class with GOAL in a few weeks, from what I have read I should have no issues with being granted my permit. I have my MA LTC now. Was just curious if anyone has not been granted the permit after taking the class and applying.

I hear if you can get a MA LTC, you shouldn't have a problem because the requirements are much more stringent for MA.

There are a few guys on this board that teach this class MASS FIREARMS school and a few guys that have obtained a Utah permit. They might be able to provide some deeper insight, but I wouldn't think that you would have any problems considering you were able to get a MA LTC.

 

[EcHo]

I am taking the Utah class with GOAL in a few weeks, from what I have read I should have no issues with being granted my permit. I have my MA LTC now. Was just curious if anyone has not been granted the permit after taking the class and applying.

You will not be denied since Utah is a Shall Issue state for both resident and non-resident permits.

http://www.usacarry.com/utah_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

 

[SemiAutoSam]

You can also get a florida permit that also covers in the area of 30 states.

Having Utah and Florida would be interesting to see how many states are duplicated on each permit.

I took the training and qualified for the Florida permit and now am wondering if I can submit my scores to utah and get their permit as well.

 

[Sully]

You can also get a florida permit that also covers in the area of 30 states.

Having Utah and Florida would be interesting to see how many states are duplicated on each permit.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Doesn't say outright, but if you do a quick comparison side by side you'll find out.

 

[Maj. Boom Boom]

You can also get a florida permit that also covers in the area of 30 states.

Having Utah and Florida would be interesting to see how many states are duplicated on each permit.

here you go, have fun. concealed carry permit reciprocity maps

EDIT: nevermind sully beat me to it.

 

[buketduder]

I know someone who was denied a Utah CCW for a freaking DUI....They have a CT Carry Permit though...They are getting a FLA one instead..

 

[Boghog1]

how recent was the DUI?

 

[buketduder]

He had it like 5-6 months ago...It sucks..but he will just get his FLA and be ok..

I hardly consider getting a DUI has proof someone is dangerous..The limits are too low and if Liberal Connecticut lets you carry with a DUI Conviction it can't be that bad..

 

[Boghog1]

Good.

People talk like DUI is something minor. Yea, until you kill somebody.

If you are irresponsible with a vehicle while drunk, what might you do with a gun? Idiots don't deserve carry permits. They should not be denied 2A rights to own. Carry, you've proven yourself irresponsible already.

So is it okay if they drank and drove but didn't get caught? I assume you do not drink ever

 

[Bill Nance]

Good.

People talk like DUI is something minor. Yea, until you kill somebody.

If you are irresponsible with a vehicle while drunk, what might you do with a gun? Idiots don't deserve carry permits. They should not be denied 2A rights to own. Carry, you've proven yourself irresponsible already.

Ok, I see your point. Let's make sure that any misdemeanor you ever commit in your life will automatically disqualify you from ever voting, exercising your free speech rights, going to the church of your choice or writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

I mean what the Hell, any stupid thing you ever do should remove all your rights. /sarcasm

Since when is CCW a privilege? Or did you miss that keep and BEAR arms part?

If you're safe enough to walk the streets, you're safe enough to have all your rights.

 

[Tara]

Ok, I see your point. Let's make sure that any misdemeanor you ever commit in your life will automatically disqualify you from ever voting, exercising your free speech rights, going to the church of your choice or writing a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

I mean what the Hell, any stupid thing you ever do should remove all your rights. /sarcasm

Since when is CCW a privilege? Or did you miss that keep and BEAR arms part?

If you're safe enough to walk the streets, you're safe enough to have all your rights.

+ whatever I can give.

I know plenty of people who made the mistake of driving while impaired. (Yes, I said mistake) Does that mean they shouldn't own guns? Absolutely not, IMO.

 

[MaineCWPtraining]

Florida permit is good in 30 states. Most likely you already have the credentials to apply.

 

[Reptile]

Mine was delayed. My instructor failed to fill out his info on the fingerprint form. They told me to resubmit the prints after getting prints done at the local police station.

It was no big deal, but just make sure you have everything complete. Don't forget to mail in your certificate of the class, too.

 

[Remsport Mfg]

Why would you want someone that will drive a 3500lbs. killing machine impaired without thinking about the consequences doing the same with a gun?

 

[oldsoldier29]

How many people drive drunk and ARENT caught? Honestly, I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, if they are convicted of vehicular homicide, or something, that could affect it. But, a DUI? What if it were 20 years ago? I think that should not necessarily disqualify someone for a LTC. Hell, it doesnt disqualify people from DRIVING in this state...watch the news.
That being said, I think here in MA, where the laws are designed to catch you doing something wrong, so that they can yank your license, most of us are pretty conscious of when we shoot. I would sincerely hope people dont go out shooting while drinking. It comes down to personal responsibility. And, as a gun owner in this state, I wouldnt have an issue confronting someone, directly or indirectly, regarding drinking while shooting. I dont want to get hurt, I dont want others getting hurt, and I dont want the negative publicity.

 

[Boghog1]

Why would you want someone that will drive a 3500lbs. killing machine impaired without thinking about the consequences doing the same with a gun?

Impaired is the key word here. can you drink two beers in an hour and not be impaired an hour later? could you at that point blow a .08bac Could you also be a functional drunk that walks around at a .15bac level and be "sober" and not become impaired until you hit a .20bac

 

[FreeWillie]

Good.

People talk like DUI is something minor. Yea, until you kill somebody.

If you are irresponsible with a vehicle while drunk, what might you do with a gun? Idiots don't deserve carry permits. They should not be denied 2A rights to own. Carry, you've proven yourself irresponsible already.

The Constitution says: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I think that's pretty clear. But if you would deny that right because of DUI I question your support of the original document.. I don't like DUI's either but the Founding Fathers said "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How say you?

 

[FreeWillie]

I agree 100%.

Being denied a carry privileges and owning guns are two different matters.

Keep and Bear Arms.

Nobody short of a felon should be prohibited from owning whatever damn firearm they so choose. Thats what I say.

Why would you deny a felon his second amendment rights? You don't deny him his MIRANDA rights, conjugal visits or due process. Why deny his Constitutionally enumerated right of keeping and bearing arms?

With the reality of gun laws and liberal mindsets of today that seek to take away our rights to carry, I really don't want drunks representing CCW permit holders. Media gets their hands on the data and says "look 20% of CCW holders are drunks". Then libtard politicians will want to do something about it.

Our politicians are tolerated when they drink and kill people. Are they above us? The point is we need to hold our politicians to the same standard that we are held to.

Thats reality in our system that generally requires permits.

If all states were Vermont, Alaska or Arizona where no carry permit is required (which Im in favor of) than it would be a perfect system and DUIs would have no affect. Until then, irresponsible idiots should not hold permits. They are a liability to the existence of civilian carry if you ask me. As somebody who is responsible and does not take the wheel impaired, I really have a problem with them ruining it (at least in the court of public opinion) for the rest of us.

Nor should they be elected to office.

 

[KMaurer]

Everybody want's to play the "holier than thou" card today. I definitely don't want people who have get DUIs to be carrying firearms. Anybody who does is IMHO a fool. Having said that, please note that I didn't say that I wanted the government to deny them the right to own or possess (or even carry) guns; I simply stated the reasonable belief that they shouldn't. I don't cut people slack who do stupid things with their guns and "accidentally" endanger or shoot someone. I don't cut people slack who do stupid things with motor vehicles, such as driving under the influence. Saying that "everybody does it occasionally" is never an excuse for those who get caught; it's a warning to sensible people to stop doing things they know they shouldn't.

Ken

 

[TimMcG74]

Who said anything about drinking???

Its about drinking AND driving and being impaired enough to be convicted. It shows a lack of responsibility.

To answer your question, I really don't drink, no. One beer at a wedding or special event now and then if I can't avoid it. Otherwise, no drinking.

So, one DUI conviction demonstrates that someone is insufficiently responsible to carry for life? Give me a break. You may be surprised to learn that this is a pro-2A forum. Perhaps this site is more your speed.

 

[DickWanner]

Dude, use the friggen multiple quote feature. I saw that the thread was three pages and might have contained something worth reading, but half of the thread is filled up with your multiple posts of crap. Unless they were carrying a firearm during the commission of a DUI I don't see how the two are related. Ever get a parking or speeding ticket? I think that shows a total lack of judgement and I wouldn't want someone with bad judgement voting.

 

[TomH]

Good.

People talk like DUI is something minor. Yea, until you kill somebody.

If you are irresponsible with a vehicle while drunk, what might you do with a gun? Idiots don't deserve carry permits. They should not be denied 2A rights to own. Carry, you've proven yourself irresponsible already.

The constitution disagrees.

 

[Bill Nance]

I definitely don't want people who have get DUIs to be carrying firearms. Anybody who does is IMHO a fool. Having said that, please note that I didn't say that I wanted the government to deny them the right to own or possess (or even carry) guns; I simply stated the reasonable belief that they shouldn't.

I don't cut people slack who do stupid things with their guns and "accidentally" endanger or shoot someone. I don't cut people slack who do stupid things with motor vehicles, such as driving under the influence. Saying that "everybody does it occasionally" is never an excuse for those who get caught; it's a warning to sensible people to stop doing things they know they shouldn't.

I don't think anyone was saying "Everyone does it occasionally." What they're saying is that removing rights is wrong. At least that's the way I feel.

Do your time and then as far as I'm concerned, you should be a full citizen with no hindrances at all unless someone personally knows you. If you re-offend then you should go back for a long time. Third strike and that's it, you're gone forever.

I'm as harsh a critic of driving impaired as anyone. I NEVER do it. If there's even the tiniest feeling of intoxication, I won't drive. I'd be perfectly happy to have mandatory 1-year jail sentences for a 1st offense DUI. But permanently removing rights is the wrong approach. Keep them in jail if they're so dange3rously irresponsible they can't be trusted to not hurt anyone.

Two-tiered citizenship and "criminal records" are a comparatively recent thing. We managed to do just fine without them for 135 years or so. One look at crime stats would indicate that they don't do much good.

 

[FreeWillie]

This is not an easy issue but the Constitution is clear. No Infringement. If you start making exceptions then you accept and ensure the antis get what they want - ridding us of our only protection against a tyranny. That's the way it is. Will people abuse the right? Of course they will. So we smack them up-side-their-head and say STOP but seeking to limit the right serves no one.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

Camels nose under the tent.
Soon the rest of the Camel will follow.

This is not an easy issue but the Constitution is clear. No Infringement. If you start making exceptions then you accept and ensure the antis get what they want - ridding us of our only protection against a tyranny. That's the way it is. Will people abuse the right? Of course they will. So we smack them up-side-their-head and say STOP but seeking to limit the right serves no one.

 

[IDPA Mike]

Took the class at Harvard sportsman's .
Got License 6 wees later

I am taking the Utah class with GOAL in a few weeks, from what I have read I should have no issues with being granted my permit. I have my MA LTC now. Was just curious if anyone has not been granted the permit after taking the class and applying.

 

[TimMcG74]

I've also said, more than once, that I favor a VT, AZ, AK system where if you can own you can carry. Then it is blind to the whole drunk thing which I think would be the perfect situation. Since we have a permitting system in most states currently, I'm not comfortable with drunks having permits because its documented fuel for the Brady Bunch and others.

That logic is so flawed that I am not sure where to begin. Are you actually saying that you support withholding the fundamental right to bear arms from people with misdemeanors because it makes you look bad?!?! We should tip toe around the VPC so that rights can be preserved for only those who have squeaky clean records? That kind of concessionary attitude is helpful, not harmful to the anti-crowd's agenda. Give them everyone who has ever committed a crime and which group will they demand next?

Also, the blanket assertion that everyone with a DUI is a "drunk" and an "idiot" is naive and elitist. Is driving while impaired irresponsible and dangerous? Is it selfish and ill-advised? Is it a criminal offense? Absolutely, but it is also a misdemeanor, and it is the most common crime processed by our courts. You are correct when you say that Utah has a 6 year moratorium. In Massachusetts, beacuse of the maximum sentence and it's intersection with the Gun Control Act, it is life. If someone is convicted of a first and only offense DUI in college, even with an otherwise clean record, he will be statutorily disqualified when he is 60 years old. You are careful to stipulate what you have said, but I haven't heard you say that you disagree with lifetime disqualifications.

 

[Boghog1]

I bet she would be functional/not impared at .10 but still legally drunk
http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/crime/woman-blows-406-in-clinton-dui-arrest

 

[KMaurer]

It's not that way in every state, but get your first conviction (or guilty plea) on a Massachusetts DUI and you're barred for life nation-wide. I'm completely behind serious penalties for drunk driving, but the problem is that the Congress and a lot of other people insist on tacking on all sorts of penalties that bear absolutely no relation to the crime. While some people (certainly not me) might make an argument from irresponsible behavior with a motor vehicle to the likelihood of similar behavior with firearms, I'd like to see the argument for making a failure to report a hotel fire (c. 266, §13A) or making a false statement to a motor vehicle insurer (c. 266, §111B) to permanently removing someone's guaranteed rights under the 2nd Amendment. I wonder how favorably the courts would view a law allowing police to search someone's person or property without a warrant or probably cause after a conviction for shoplifting over $100 (c.266, §30A).

Ken