Utah draws thousands for no-shooting-required gun permit

By Reuters
Saturday, February 26, 2011 13:06 EDT
google plus icon
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

AUSTIN, Tex. (Reuters) – Texans seeking concealed handgun licenses are increasingly turning to Utah, a state that does not require actually shooting a gun to get a permit.

“Once the word got out, everybody was doing it,” said Texas state Rep. Lon Burnam.

From 2009 to 2010 the number of Utah permits issued to Texans more than doubled to 5,678 from 2,173, according to Utah’s Bureau of Criminal Identification. Of the 66,371 permits Utah issued last year, more than 70 percent went to out-of-staters, bureau figures show. All this was while the overall number of concealed licenses issued in Utah declined.

Utah requires only four hours of training and no shooting, while Texas requires 10 hours, including firing a gun on a shooting range. The Utah fee is $65, compared to $140 in Texas. And it’s possible to get a Utah permit without ever setting foot in that state.

“It’s easier,” said Carrie Kroll of the Texas Pediatric Society, who got a Utah permit in advance of the Texas legislative session that began in January. “I know just enough to understand what I don’t know.”

The Utah course teaches how to safely load, unload, store and carry a firearm, and explains Utah and federal laws on use of force by private citizens. Participants learn basic gun safety, such as treating all firearms as if they are loaded, and they learn about the parts of a gun, different types of ammunition and various shooting positions.

Utah applicants do not have to take a test while applicants to the Texas program do.

Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he worries that some people are getting Utah permits because they want to skirt background-check provisions in their home states.

“What are they hiding?” Malte asked.

Aware of the loophole, Utah is moving to tighten requirements. A bill recently approved by the Utah House and Senate would require out-of-staters seeking a Utah permit to first get one from their home state if their state recognizes the Utah permit. The proposal followed decisions by Nevada and New Mexico to stop recognizing Utah permits.

“We didn’t want to have a cottage industry of issuing concealed weapons permits for the whole United States,” said Utah state Sen. John Valentine, author of the measure.

The Utah bill is headed for Utah Gov. Gary Herbert’s desk for signature.

If he signs the new law, it could put a damper on the applications from Texas, where lobbyists and others are getting licenses because of new security measures at the State Capitol building in Austin. Concealed handgun license holders can bypass the airport-style security checkpoints that went into effect last year.

In Texas, Burnam has proposed a bill that would end recognition of out-of-state permits, except for visitors. Burnam said he is concerned about the loss of revenue to Texas and the fact that Texans are bypassing important safety requirements.

“When my family discovered that my widowed grandmother kept a handgun in a hatbox, we didn’t have a problem with it because she grew up shooting jackrabbits and rattlesnakes in West Texas,” Burnam said.

Now, he said, Texans with out-of-state permits include “suburban housewives who have never held a gun in their life and don’t know how to use it,” he said. “That’s concerning.”

But Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, a former state senator who wrote Texas’ concealed handgun law and has been known to carry a gun in his boot, said that the most important parts of the license process are checking criminal history and ensuring an understanding of deadly force.

“Proficiency (with a gun) is kind of gravy,” Patterson said.

(Editing by Greg McCune)

Mochila insert follows.

Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in business, politics, technology, and more.
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
  • Anonymous

    Well hell, I can do you one better. I will have my blind uncle Dan go get a permit. There isn’t anything like blind people with loaded guns just waiting to shot your ass for dipping into their cups.

  • http://www.rawstory.com/ Stumptownhero

    Don’t y’all in Texas feel safer now knowing that ther are a whole passel of new CC holders patroling the streets who may OR may NOT have a clue how to shoot?

    Lock-n-loead baaabee

  • http://www.balmorheaprogressive.blogspot.com/ BaileyWuXiang

    It’s the history of Mormon-perpetrated massacres that attracts them.

  • http://www.balmorheaprogressive.blogspot.com/ BaileyWuXiang

    When I was a kid, the blind cowboy Don Mahony visited my elementary school and let all of us touch his six-shooter. Even at 6-years of age I wondered if it was a good idea to stand so close to him.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_U4CB4JMBKUBO6NL2RNREZDZUEA Freeky_Fried_Chicken

    The only ‘permit’ any citizen needs is the 2nd Amendment.

    The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is exactly that.

    Legislators eat money and poop laws; be like the rich and obey only the ones you want.

  • Anonymous

    Funny how brainwashed some people are. They have been conditioned for decades to believe that only a fancy uniform and a piece of paper from a different source is required to properly use a gun.

    If anyone other than a government employee carries a gun it is dangerous


  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5XLGAVO5KMCDDVXTW5BDTMYQTY Joe

    Given the state of education in Texas I can understand why Texans wouldn’t want to take a test (or be able to pass one) to get a concealed weapons permit.

  • Anonymous

    “to properly use a gun. ”

    You are the fool for thinking that there IS a “proper” use for a gun.

    “carries a gun”

    See you can’t even tell the difference between “carry” and “use”. You are precisely the type of person who should not be allowed anywhere near one.

  • Anonymous

    Yes indeed you are perfectly within your rights to own a single shot flintlock, which is the kind of “arms” that they are talking about in the Constitution.

    You say “well our guns are just more modern” but consider this:

    Our electronic communications are not considered “personal effects” guaranteed to be protected from “illegal search and seizure” by the Constitution. So it is abundantly clear that the constitution applies only to technology that existed when it was written.

    How’s that “strict interpretation” for you?

  • Anonymous

    It is my understanding that most Texans shoot well before they are ready.