HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Gun Control Advocates Say...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:19 AM

Gun Control Advocates Say Lax Utah Permit Rules Lurk Within Senate Bill

Utah police encountered a deadly barrage of gunfire when trying to serve a warrant at a suspect’s house last night. One officer, a seven-year veteran of the force, was killed and five others were wounded before the lone suspect was shot and arrested. The shootout continues a deadly trend from last year, when 71 officers were shot to death, a 20 percent increase over the year before.

The past year was likely a record one for gun sales as well. The FBI reported (PDF) that the number of gun-related background checks skyrocketed in 2011, to nearly 16.5 million, a 15 percent increase over 2010 and the highest number since 1998. The checks don’t perfectly correlate with gun sales, says FBI spokesman Stephen Fischer. They may misrepresent the number of guns sold, because people might not pass the checks, and they fail to capture sales by private dealers at gun shows and online. They certainly overstate the number of sales in Kentucky, the top-ranking state, because officials there run monthly checks on people who hold concealed-weapons permits.

Something similar is likely inflating the number for Utah, which has started rechecking concealed-weapons permits on a quarterly basis and now ranks third in the country for the number of checks performed. But the high number that results from the recounts points to a unique fact of Utah’s gun-control laws: the state hands out a tremendous number of concealed-weapons permits, many to people who never set foot in Utah.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/06/gun-control-advocates-say-lax-utah-permit-rules-lurk-within-senate-bill.html

18 replies, 2018 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gun Control Advocates Say Lax Utah Permit Rules Lurk Within Senate Bill (Original post)
SecularMotion Jan 2012 OP
S_B_Jackson Jan 2012 #1
X_Digger Jan 2012 #2
PavePusher Jan 2012 #3
rl6214 Jan 2012 #4
SecularMotion Jan 2012 #5
rl6214 Jan 2012 #10
SteveW Jan 2012 #17
petronius Jan 2012 #6
SecularMotion Jan 2012 #7
gejohnston Jan 2012 #8
petronius Jan 2012 #9
Glassunion Jan 2012 #11
SecularMotion Jan 2012 #13
SteveW Jan 2012 #18
spin Jan 2012 #12
Atypical Liberal Jan 2012 #14
ileus Jan 2012 #15
AtheistCrusader Jan 2012 #16

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:46 AM

1. Why do you believe that Utah non-resident permits are a problem?

At least I assume that you share the views of the article.......

Has there been a rash of attacks on Utah law enforcement officers by holders of Utah non-resident concealed carry permits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to S_B_Jackson (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:55 AM

2. That does appear to be the disconnect the article misses..

The flaw in the logic is obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:24 AM

3. Until Mr. Dzieza can demonstrate that the criminals held Utah permits, he's full of shit.

 

Do you have a point? Commentary? Or is this just more drive-by posting? Taking tips from jpak?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:47 PM

4. The spam is heavy from this one today

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:08 PM

5. Spam is flooding the board with many copies of the same message

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:59 PM

10. Depends on where you are getting the definition from

 


spam

Electronic junk mail or junk newsgroup postings.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/S/spam.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:29 PM

17. I was deer hunting last December and suffered from a bout of...

constipation. After 3 days, a heavy freight of untold length pulled out of the station. For some reason, no one else celebrated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:16 PM

6. If Utah is rechecking CCW permits quarterly, it would be interesting to know

how many permits the state is revoking - i.e., how many permit holders become ineligible after issuance. If the author's fears about the Utah model are well-founded, we'd expect to see a relatively high number there...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:21 PM

7. It would be interesting to know the number revoked

since the NRA and pro-gun lobby are using the rise in the number of background checks as an indicator of a rise in gun sales.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:34 PM

8. I doubt it is anywhere near

the number of MAIG mayors that are felons.

http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/
this is an old list that has not been updated yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:43 PM

9. If sales are what you're interested in, then what you'd want is the the total

number of checks that aren't sale-related (e.g. rechecks of permit holders). Rejections wouldn't matter there.

But your OP was about fears concerning the Utah permitting structure: in that case, it's subsequent rejections of previously issued permits that matter. If the number is low, then the fears expressed in your OP lack foundation...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:20 PM

11. The NRA and gun-lobby are not ONLY using the background checks as the indicator of a rise in sales.

They are also using sales numbers from manufacturers. An inconvenient truth intentionally overlooked from the Brady Bunch when they are trying to "prove" that gun sales are in fact not on the rise.

Some firearms manufacturers are publicly traded. Therefore all of their sales numbers are public information and can easily be looked up(or intentionally ignored).

Sturm Ruger & Co - 2011
Revenue Growth: 24%
Profit Growth: 848%
Sales increased 23% compared to the same quarter in 2010 and profits shot up 33%.

A few links...
http://dragonflycap.com/2012/01/18/bang-bang-gunfight-in-the-hunting-store/
http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=RGR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:29 PM

13. Never said gun sales are not on the rise

I'm just saying that the number of background checks may not be a good indication because it includes re-checks from some states which are done on a regular basis and also does not adjust for failures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:42 PM

18. Gun ownership/availability is estimated by the Gallup Organization...



http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

The study indicated that gun ownership/availability was up 6% from two years before, rising most particularly for those describing themselves as Democrats/Democratic-leaning, and for women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:26 PM

12. To take a story about a drug bust and use it ...

to attack concealed carry is irresponsible journalism at its worst. It's obvious that the writer has an agenda.


Ogden shootout suspect claims he cannot afford an attorney
By Sheena McFarland

The Salt Lake Tribune
First published Jan 23 2012 10:15AM


Matthew David Stewart — charged with capital murder and multiple counts of attempted murder in connection with a deadly shootout with Ogden police — has filed court documents indicating he cannot afford to hire an attorney.

***snip***

Stewart was charged Jan. 13 for his alleged actions on Jan. 4, when members of the Weber Morgan Narcotics Strike Force served a search warrant at Stewart’s home, at 3268 Jackson Ave., to find a marijuana grow.

According to court documents, Stewart shot at members of the strike force with a Beretta 9 mm handgun. He concealed himself in his home and began shooting officers at a close range as they searched the residence, according to the documents.

***snip***

The day after the shootout, a drug task force from Davis County executed the original search warrant and found "multiple marijuana plants, artificial lighting and a water system," the affidavit says.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53356547-78/stewart-police-affidavit-officer.html.csp


I have been unable to find any info that indicates that the suspect had a carry permit. I'm sure that if he did have one this tidbit would have appeared in the headlines for the story which would have looked like this:

Man With Carry Permit Shoots Six Police Officers

This story appears to have nothing to do with concealed carry. The incident occurred in a home not on a street. To compare a armed individual growing marijuana in his own home to an honest citizen who carries a licensed firearm in public is like comparing a poisonous mushroom to a McIntosh apple.

The incident merely shows how dangerous people who engage in growing marijuana for profit can be. If anything it illustrates that our war on drugs has led to many tragedies and has been a total failure. If we had legalized marijuana as many have suggested, this incident might not have occurred.

I suspect the new tactic that will be used by those who oppose concealed carry is to link every criminal shooting to the subject of legal concealed carry. Some say that the pen is mightier than the sword. Perhaps journalists should require a license to exercise their 1st Amendment rights as they appear to be failing to use their power responsibly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:07 PM

14. Should be trivial to factor out CCW permit holder background checks.

 

The state of Utah knows how many CCW permit holders it has. Multiply that number by 4 (4 quarters in a year) and subtract that number from the total number of NICS background checks.

I'm not sure what this has to do with yet another botched drug-related no-knock warrant, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:31 PM

15. the anti oped that cried wolf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:41 PM

16. I'm missing the connection between the pearl-clutching story, and concealed carry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread