Utah gun permit business booming - in other states

[jedi]

WOW talk about trying to scare the public with this article.
See my comments in red.

The article tried to make it sound like having a permit from out of state should not be recognized by other states. Well by that same token I would say if you have an IL driver's license that too should NOT be recognized by any other state as well. After all your DL implies you mae own a car which yo cn then use in an armed robbery (get away car) or to run someone over with. Dangerous stuff hu!

---
SALMON, Idaho (Reuters) – Never shot a gun? Never been to Utah? Got a "combat mindset"?
If yes to the above, you could qualify for a concealed gun permit from Utah, which is seeing record demand for permits from people all across the United States who never been to the state and have no intention of ever going.
Bedrock conservatism is enjoying a surge with the rise of the Tea Party movement, which advocates small government, individual rights and has made a strong showing in Utah. The debate may become only hotter after a Monday U.S. Supreme Court ruling extended gun rights to all cities and states.
Spurred by fears that U.S. President Barack Obama will add gun control to his already crowded domestic agenda, denizens of the once-wild West and other Americans are snapping up firearm permits. Some 90 million people in the United States have an estimated 200 million guns.
(This is indeed sad. Only 2.9% of the total US Population (307 mil) own guns. Sort of reminds me of the 3% of coloniest that fought in the war for independence.)
Utah makes it easy, and thousands have enrolled in classes promoting its concealed weapons license to people from other states, many of whom have never been to Utah and never intend to go there.
Salmon, Idaho resident Bruce Smith just took an Idaho-based Utah permit course that would let him carry in Idaho, Utah and 31 other states. Course provider Ericsson Investigations on its Web site promises to teach laws, gun safety and "the combat 'mind set'".
"I'd hate to be without backup," Smith said. The course did not include shooting a gun but did show how to load one.
A five-year permit good in 33 states has flooded Utah with applications, with the number rising to 74,000 last year. The fee is $65.25. Applicants must also clear a background check, be 21, and take a course.
Today, more out-of-state residents have Utah licenses than state residents, and out-of-state instructors outnumber those from Utah.
Utah's program alarms gun control groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
"It's a state where they don't seem to care about the consequences that may arise from some of the permits they're issuing," said spokesman Peter Hamm.
(& what exaclty is the problem with this? A) You are passing a background check, b) just cause you have a permit does not mean you own a gun? C) What is a permit now just as dangerous as a physcial gun?

OUT OF STATE CLASSES
Texas and other gun-friendly states require gun permit classes to be based in their state, which Utah does not. Utah's licenses are valid in more states than most, too. Idaho permits are valid in only four other states -- one eighth the number with which Utah has agreements.
Not all states are happy with Utah's plan. Western neighbors New Mexico and Nevada in recent months have revoked recognition of Utah's licenses because it doesn't oblige applicants to train with a handgun or even fire one.
With the state poised to become the de facto national supplier of such permits, officials with the Utah Bureau of Criminal Identification say they are overwhelmed.
"The only people making money off it are the instructors," said Lt. Doug Anderson, manager of the concealed firearms program.
More Americans than ever believe they need to carry a concealed weapon, and the sentiment is widespread in Western states, where historic settlement saw justice dispensed at the end of a gun barrel.
(Hum.. WRONG! I recall reading an article on here about how someone researched actual western shootings and found out that in reality only 10 shootings occurred in the "wild west" during the period that the "wild west" was around. The rest were all fiction and movie based. Just like that statement I image.

The pattern strengthened when Obama was elected president. Pro-gun activists emphasized that Obama was from Illinois, one of two states that forbid carrying concealed weapons.
"With the change in administration from Bush to Obama, people became concerned there would be additional gun-control legislation," said Idaho-based firearms instructor John Kie. "That hasn't played out but the fear is there."
Concealed-carry permits in states like Colorado, Montana, Idaho and Texas are jumping.
"Obama and all of them are just trying to take away our rights," said Salmon Mayor John Miller, a self-described gun activist. "I believe in guns. Idaho, Montana, all the Wild West states, we're not giving up our guns." (Reporting by Laura Zuckerman, editing by Peter Henderson and Alan Elsner)

SORUCE: Utah gun permit business booming - in other states - Yahoo! News

 

[revsaxon]

Your math is a bit off. 90mil people out of 307mil people is ~26%. Other than that scary stuff.

 

[jedi]

Well that is even better! But I hope that one day that number is 50%+

 

[308jake]

Go Utah....

 

[Archaic_Entity]

(Hum.. WRONG! I recall reading an article on here about how someone researched actual western shootings and found out that in reality only 10 shootings occurred in the "wild west" during the period that the "wild west" was around. The rest were all fiction and movie based. Just like that statement I image.

Without a definition on what a 'shooting' is, I find that very difficult to believe. For a fact, Doc Holliday was involved in at least 5 himself. 4 in one-on-one confrontations and the 5th is the OK Corral shootout.

And that's just one person. I'm just wondering where those facts come from.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Also... Idaho's permit is accepted as valid in 27 other states, not "only four". Theirs is valid in one more state than ours is. (they are recognized in NE and OH, but not MS; we are the reverse)

So either the writer didn't do proper research or is intentionally lying. Any bets on not doing the research? Hmm. Nah, I didn't think there would be.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Woodrow]

So either the writer didn't do proper research or is intentionally lying. Any bets on not doing the research? Hmm. Nah, I didn't think there would be.

[/quote]

I don't think the original author needs to lie. Even if he had done just the most precursory amount of pre-reading, he still may not have had the proper facts. I don't think he is intentionally lying anymore than I believe our brother Jediagh is lying when he provides some of his inaccurate information. I think that there are simply too few avenues for accurate information on the internet. Why read Law Reviews or actual Code Law when wikipedia has a link to this guy who said so, or google can locate this organization that did the research for me?

I think that this writer is attempting to advance his own agenda and is using materials and organizations that are in alignment with his own beliefs. I doubt that the did serious research, discovered that his belief system is totally incorrect, and decided to lie anyway, just because he is trying to convince his readers otherwise. He simply doesn't agree with us and has incorrect information. When we sling accusations, we embody the paranoia of which we ourselves are accused. Owning a gun, taking the stance that one can and will kill when called upon, in defense of your family, your rights, and your country, means that one has accepted a higher level of consciousness. See the world for what it is. Read this article, understand that it is misinformation because it is emotion-based (good job Reuters), but know that emotional appeal exists when there is an absence of factual support.

 

[Woodrow]

There is a huge difference between disinformation and misinformation.

 

[jedi]

Without a definition on what a 'shooting' is, I find that very difficult to believe. For a fact, Doc Holliday was involved in at least 5 himself. 4 in one-on-one confrontations and the 5th is the OK Corral shootout.

And that's just one person. I'm just wondering where those facts come from.

I don't think the original author needs to lie. Even if he had done just the most precursory amount of pre-reading, he still may not have had the proper facts. I don't think he is intentionally lying anymore than I believe our brother Jediagh is lying when he provides some of his inaccurate information. I think that there are simply too few avenues for accurate information on the internet. Why read Law Reviews or actual Code Law when wikipedia has a link to this guy who said so, or google can locate this organization that did the research for me?

I'm sorry I can't find the article (yet). The closest thing I found was this site: Old West Gunfights

The article had to deal with a shoot out between a bank robbery gang and a small town. I think I read it in the NRA magazine America's 1st Freedom (Jun 2010 edition ). The article talked about how the town came together and regular citizens took the fight to the robbers as they were trying to leave town after robbing the local bank. Near the beginning of the article the author wrote to the effect that there were very few "shoot outs" in the wild west and I think he actually gave a number. It's all fuzzy and I really wish I could find the article. (gggrrrr)

I apologize for misleading some of you. I'm not sure how the author defined "shooting" as it was not stated in the article that I recall. The article dealt more with the events that unfolded during that particular shoot out with the gang.

 

[Bill of Rights]

So either the writer didn't do proper research or is intentionally lying. Any bets on not doing the research? Hmm. Nah, I didn't think there would be.

I don't think the original author needs to lie. Even if he had done just the most precursory amount of pre-reading, he still may not have had the proper facts. I don't think he is intentionally lying anymore than I believe our brother Jediagh is lying when he provides some of his inaccurate information. I think that there are simply too few avenues for accurate information on the internet. Why read Law Reviews or actual Code Law when wikipedia has a link to this guy who said so, or google can locate this organization that did the research for me?

I think that this writer is attempting to advance his own agenda and is using materials and organizations that are in alignment with his own beliefs. I doubt that the did serious research, discovered that his belief system is totally incorrect, and decided to lie anyway, just because he is trying to convince his readers otherwise. He simply doesn't agree with us and has incorrect information. When we sling accusations, we embody the paranoia of which we ourselves are accused. Owning a gun, taking the stance that one can and will kill when called upon, in defense of your family, your rights, and your country, means that one has accepted a higher level of consciousness. See the world for what it is. Read this article, understand that it is misinformation because it is emotion-based (good job Reuters), but know that emotional appeal exists when there is an absence of factual support.

When Jediagh posts something here, the responsibility for his post is solely his and he knows that his reputation (and I don't mean his "rep score") will bear out his words, meaning that people, seeing what he says, will either look at his post and recall that he checked those things he stated as factual or stated that he had not checked and identified information as opinion, not fact, vs. that he was "talking out of his posterior"... (Apologies, Jedi, I'm not saying that the latter is true, only that people will decide one or the other or somewhere in between based on your posts. I used you for the example only because you were the example Woodrow quoted.)

A professional journalist, OTOH, has a much greater responsibility to his readers and moreso, to the truth. My memory is very good, however I know that if I quote a law, it's not what I think I remember, it's what the actual law says. If I paraphrase, I note it as such, and when I give an opinion, it's just that, and clearly so.

Finding out that Idaho's CWP is recognized in more than four states took me less time than finding out they have a "Concealed Weapons Permit" as opposed to LTCH, CDWP, CCW, or some other term for the state-issued permission slip, and that took all of a minute and a half.

If the "journalist" wishes to be taken seriously, perhaps proselytizing his opinions should be less important to him than doing his job, which is to report the factual truth.

But then, I suppose that's just my opinion.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Woodrow]

Bill,

I agree with the responsibility of the professional journalist, to an extent, but journalists have agendas and biases and ignorance of their own. A journalist is just a guy writing a story and supporting it as best as he can or wants to. There is no such thing as journalistic integrity. A journalist is an idealogue and a writer, not some great researcher. A journalist has a limited deadline and must convey something. They are selling media--it's a business, not a public service. If you want facts, you obviously know where to look. If you want an examination of an issue, you check the media. My point is that just because someone is wrong does not mean they are misinformed

Jediagh-

The James Gang, Butch and Sundance's Gang, the Newtons, even Dillinger's people all ran into an armed resistance by people who didn't buy into the whole Robin Hood thing anymore. Now it's true, the Wild West was never murder central, but I do think that the lack of organized law and the great distances involved led to quite a bit of frontier justice. Point is, even if gun owners are only 26%, when you factor in children of gun owners who can't yet own guns, we're doing alright. Remember, people often convert from Non-gun households to gun-owning, but people who grew up around guns almost never become anti-gun, or even non-gun owners simply because of inheritance.

 

[jedi]

Bill,


Jediagh-

The James Gang, Butch and Sundance's Gang, the Newtons, even Dillinger's people all ran into an armed resistance by people who didn't buy into the whole Robin Hood thing anymore. Now it's true, the Wild West was never murder central, but I do think that the lack of organized law and the great distances involved led to quite a bit of frontier justice. Point is, even if gun owners are only 26%, when you factor in children of gun owners who can't yet own guns, we're doing alright. Remember, people often convert from Non-gun households to gun-owning, but people who grew up around guns almost never become anti-gun, or even non-gun owners simply because of inheritance.

*cough* Brady Campaign guy & wife *cough*
I do agree with you. It typically takes a LCE (Life Changing Event) for a non-gun owner to finially get pushed to the gun side. At least that is what occured to me in my late 20s/early 30s.

 

[Woodrow]

As to Jim Brady, the exception proves the rule. Poor brain-damaged Jim Brady and his wife lived through a horrible ordeal and they parlayed that into a cause, behind which people in the middle could rally. That's fine, and more power, because all they do is raise awareness and have become a beacon for all who don't support them. The NRA has gained tremendous momentum now that there is a single foe to fight. I'm happy that the Bradys have proven polarizing enough to have allowed us to now have Heller and now MacDonald in place.

Oh yeah, by the way:

Chicago passes revised gun law, allowing handgun ownership - CSMonitor.com

Hahahaha!

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Bill,

I agree with the responsibility of the professional journalist, to an extent, but journalists have agendas and biases and ignorance of their own. A journalist is just a guy writing a story and supporting it as best as he can or wants to. There is no such thing as journalistic integrity. A journalist is an idealogue and a writer, not some great researcher. A journalist has a limited deadline and must convey something. They are selling media--it's a business, not a public service. If you want facts, you obviously know where to look. If you want an examination of an issue, you check the media. My point is that just because someone is wrong does not mean they are misinformed

While this is obviously true, it's still appalling how many "journalists" can get away with simply stating a complete falsification of the matter and have it considered fact. On another forum, I'm currently pointing out the same thing Bill pointed out here, and they just aren't "buying" my point of view (even after citing my sources--which weren't "some dude on another forum") because I'm no journalist. Now... I just started on the forum, and I don't think I like it all that much just because these people are farces of debaters so far. But we'll see.

I'd also like to say, to Jedi, that I usually do think you've put a lot of research into what you post. I do hope you find that article, I'm very curious where they get the number 10 from.

 

[Woodrow]

While this is obviously true, it's still appalling how many "journalists" can get away with simply stating a complete falsification of the matter and have it considered fact. On another forum, I'm currently pointing out the same thing Bill pointed out here, and they just aren't "buying" my point of view (even after citing my sources--which weren't "some dude on another forum") because I'm no journalist. Now... I just started on the forum, and I don't think I like it all that much just because these people are farces of debaters so far. But we'll see.

I'd also like to say, to Jedi, that I usually do think you've put a lot of research into what you post. I do hope you find that article, I'm very curious where they get the number 10 from.

Archaic-

Upon reading your post, I looked at what I wrote, and wondered if it sounded jaded or realistic. I still stand by what i said, but I can't help but wonder if it is unhealthy to have resigned oneself or is it beneficial, i.e. know thy enemy?

I do want to say though, when I make statements like "some dude on another site," i don't mean to denigrate anyone i have met here--we all know that almost as a rule, gun rights supporters are well-informed and extremely discerning in their sources of research. We all know that the opposition can hurl whatever garbage they would like at us, but we only get to be wrong one time.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill,

I agree with the responsibility of the professional journalist, to an extent, but journalists have agendas and biases and ignorance of their own. A journalist is just a guy writing a story and supporting it as best as he can or wants to. There is no such thing as journalistic integrity. A journalist is an idealogue and a writer, not some great researcher. A journalist has a limited deadline and must convey something. They are selling media--it's a business, not a public service. If you want facts, you obviously know where to look. If you want an examination of an issue, you check the media. My point is that just because someone is wrong does not mean they are misinformed
...

With respect, I hear what you're saying, but I read a great quote yesterday:

"When an honest man who is mistaken learns the truth, he either ceases to be mistaken or he ceases to be honest."

It's too easy to find verifiable facts for me to believe that either the author or his source are simply "misinformed", and I disagree that the only purpose of the media is simply to tell stories. Their job is to report the news, which means the facts, not just their opinions. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I think their first duty is to the truth. That they shirk that duty does not change it.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Archaic_Entity]

Archaic-

Upon reading your post, I looked at what I wrote, and wondered if it sounded jaded or realistic. I still stand by what i said, but I can't help but wonder if it is unhealthy to have resigned oneself or is it beneficial, i.e. know thy enemy?

I do want to say though, when I make statements like "some dude on another site," i don't mean to denigrate anyone i have met here--we all know that almost as a rule, gun rights supporters are well-informed and extremely discerning in their sources of research. We all know that the opposition can hurl whatever garbage they would like at us, but we only get to be wrong one time.

I entirely agree with you. The majority of my sources are as close to first hand as I can get. I'll quote the statute if possible (if in question) or whatever I can to let people know I'm not basing anything off of a blog, or some journalist who can't keep facts straight.

I'm definitely jaded the same way, but I still can't help but to find it ridiculous that these people get paid to spout disinformation. I really wish I had their jobs. I'd talk about unicorns in the White House and be a millionaire or something.

 

[philo]

There was a blurb on NPR Tuesday afternoon to the same effect. They interviewed a Trainer/Certifier from Utah and essentially tried to get him to admit they were aiding and abetting criminals. He didn't fall for the rhetoric.

 

[forklfteddie]

what states honor indiana and in return what states does indiana honor ?? please send it to my messages.. THANKS EDDIE

 

[lon]

There is a huge difference between disinformation and misinformation.

"If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed.
If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."
-Mark Twain