In Utah people, who are not restricted such as felons, may carry a loaded pistol or revolver or a unloaded rifle or shotgun in their vehicle, without a permit.
The following are “Not Illegal” in Utah Law for most people 18 years or older:
Concealed carry in vehicle of loaded or unloaded pistol/revolver
Concealed carry in vehicle of unloaded rifle/shotgun
Open carry in vehicle of loaded or unloaded pistol/revolver
Open carry in vehicle of unloaded rifle/shotgun
The only right, when it comes to car carry, that is reclaimed is the ability to carry a loaded rifle/shotgun in a vehicle.
76-10-504. Carrying concealed dangerous weapon — Penalties.
(1) Except as provided in Section 76-10-503 and in Subsections (2), (3), and (4), a person who carries a concealed dangerous weapon, as defined in Section 76-10-501, including an unloaded firearm on his or her person or one that is readily accessible for immediate use which is not securely encased, as defined in this part, in or on a place other than the person’s residence, property, a vehicle in the person’s lawful possession, or a vehicle, with the consent of the individual who is lawfully in possession of the vehicle, or business under the person’s control is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
(2) A person who carries a concealed dangerous weapon which is a loaded firearm in violation of Subsection (1) is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. ….
76-10-505. Carrying loaded firearm in vehicle or on street.
(1) Unless otherwise authorized by law, a person may not carry a loaded firearm:
(a) in or on a vehicle, unless:
(i) the vehicle is in the person’s lawful possession; or
(ii) the person is carrying the loaded firearm in a vehicle with the consent of the person lawfully in possession of the vehicle;
(b) on a public street; or
(c) in a posted prohibited area.
(2) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply to a minor under 18 years of age, since a minor under 18 years of age may not carry a loaded firearm in or on a vehicle.
(3) Notwithstanding Subsection (1)(a)(i) and (ii), a person may not possess a loaded rifle, shotgun, or muzzle-loading rifle in a vehicle.
(4) A violation of this section is a class B misdemeanor
If you have any encounter with a Law Enforcement Officer, aka LEO, these are the cardinal rules (1) Always be respectful, courteous, and even friendly and (2) Never lie to the police, it is always better to remain silent.
A LEO, can demand your (1)Name, (2) Home Address, and (3) Explanation of Actions. These apply if you are (1) in a Public Place and (2) there is Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime. It may be noted that there is no requirement to produce any form of ID (unless you are Driving under 53-3-217(b)). You are also still covered by the 5th Amendment which allows you not to answer, however that option may lead to escalation of the situation or arrest. The law is posted below.
Good questions to ask are
“Am I lawfully required to tell you that?”
“Am I being detained?” if no, then “Am I free to go?”
77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect — Grounds.
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.
The next section in the Law gives a LEO the authority to Frisk you if, and only if, you both (1) Fall into the law above (77-7-15) and (2) there is reasonable belief that the LEO or anyone else is in danger. Open carry, or knowledge of the gun, does not create a risk in and of itself. But, if you are a big jerk to the cop for a stop, you will have no legal argument against a frisk.
If you are not a jerk, and the officer is asking or demanding to frisk you. The best reply is “I will comply if required by law, but I do not consent to any unlawful searches.” Remember “Refuse Consent then Comply”
77-7-16. Authority of peace officer to frisk suspect for dangerous weapon — Grounds.
A peace officer who has stopped a person temporarily for questioning may frisk the person for a dangerous weapon if he reasonably believes he or any other person is in danger.
If you are going to be frisked, comply comply and comply, even if it is without you consent. Ask “What do I need to do?” Tell the officer where it is if needed, let him know if its a retention holster, and let them know if it is chambered. My number one problem with a legal seizure is the danger it creates in the handling of a weapon by the LEO that is not their own.
77-7-17. Authority of peace officer to take possession of weapons.
A peace officer who finds a dangerous weapon pursuant to a frisk may take and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time he shall either return it if lawfully possessed, or arrest such person.
At this point, you will either have your weapon back and will be on your way, or will be under arrest. Remember that your LEO encounter will speak for the rest of us. And if you are arrested, don’t talk to ANY cop until you see your lawyer. Things you say WILL be used against you, even if you are innocent.
In Utah’s 2010 Legislative Session, Rep Stephen Sandstrom introduced and passed House Bill 78 which provides protections to carriers. It protects a Open Carrier from the accusation that a legally visible firearm is threatening. It also provides ground for a concealed carrier to draw and display their weapon.
76-10-506. Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel.
(1) As used in this section, “threatening manner” does not include:
(a) the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening; or
(b) informing another of the actor’s possession of a deadly weapon in order to prevent what the actor reasonably perceives as a possible use of unlawful force by the other and the actor is not engaged in any activity described in Subsection 76-2-402(2)(a).
(2) Except as otherwise provided in Section 76-2-402 and for those persons described in Section 76-10-503, a person who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
(3) This section does not apply to a person who, reasonably believing the action to be necessary in compliance with Section76-2-402, with purpose to prevent another’s use of unlawful force:
(a) threatens the use of a dangerous weapon; or
(b) draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon.
This Law makes a few distinctions.
First, the carrying of a weapon, open or concealed, is not illegal under this section, aka it is not threatening.
Second, it is legal to warn another at the possibility of force so long as you are not the aggressor of committing a felony.
Third, you may draw your weapon if it is needed to stop another’s use of unlawful force.
These were much needed changes, because before there was no definition of legal threat of force between peaceful carry and use of force. This new law gives some middle self-defense ground between zero and 100%.
Do you know what is more interesting than some leaked documents (2010 Policy) that are VERY incriminating to the University of Utah?
Above that, an audio recording of a meeting in the Dean’s Office would be even more interesting. Especially when a student is advised to conceal even if the Attorney General’s office tell the UofU that it cannot enforce something that is legal.
With all the media attention that Nick Moyes’ Open Carry at the UVU brought the media, I’d think that other schools would be careful. I’m pretty sure that Nick made it to the national level. Too bad Nick didn’t have incriminating audio from the College as well as his police stop.
I think I may need to contact some people at KSL etc if news gets particularly boring this holiday season….. …But I’m not sure. Maybe “U” can help me decide!
In Utah there used to be a rule that a Concealed Carrier was required to notify an officer if he or she was carrying during a stop. This requirement was under Rule R722.300(12). However in May 2008, subsection 12 was not renewed as part of Utah Senate Bill 43. Therefore the Rule R722.300 reads as follows without a requirement to notify.
As in effect on December 1, 2010
Table of Contents
Utah’s state flower is the Sego Lily due to its role of being a food source for the early Mormon settlers of the State. The flower’s root acted as food and doubtless saved lives.
Likewise the State’s Bird is the Sea Gull. Outside of Utah, a Sea Gull is considered a pest of sorts due to their appetite for remnants of sub sandwiches (personal experience). However, their early history in Utah involves the saving of the food crop of, likewise, early Mormon settlers from the “Mormon” Cricket. Similarly, many lives were saved from starvation.
So Carl Wimmer (R- Herriman) is pushing legislation that will make the Browning 1911 Pistol the Utah firearm. The legislation will coincide with the 100th anniversary of the famous pistol, invented by the late Utahn John Browning, which has been used by the military in many wars and has been a favorite of citizens since that time. More importatly the 1911 Pistol has saved the lives of many Utahns and Americans at home and in the field of battle. I might assume in numbers far greater than and flower or bird.
Mostly, a lack of support has been in the form of apathy. Understandably, not many people will care about the state firearm just like the few who care about the state pot, the dutch oven.
The active opposition consists of those who feel it is bad taste such a Steve Gunn (no pun intended) of the Gun Violence Prevention Center. Sadly the GVPC operates from the idea that gun misuse will be cured through disarming citizens whenever possible. Mr Gunn (lol) said to KSL, “I would nominate arsenic as our state poison, because, of course arsenic is often a by-product of our state mining industry.”
I think that Mr Gunn has a very good point! Arsenic may have a bad name, like the winged rats we call sea gulls, but it is also very useful and lifesaving. Other than its use in Semiconductors and Lasers (like the one on my 1911), it has been used to Save the Lives of cancer patients, including those in Utah. Yes Arsenic has saved the lives of many with acute forms of leukemia. I have to side with Stevie on his penetrating thinking on the principles of preservation of life (except for his desire to disarm victims).
A police officer talks about the necessity of being armed. The reason is that police simple cannot protect people, they can only enforce the law by attempting to bring the criminal to justice. They have very little crime stopping powers aside from catching criminals after the fact.
He says, “If you were lucky enough to survive your attack, and we were lucky enough to be in the vicinity, then we might catch the offender. “
In other words…“When seconds count, police are only minutes away.”
Last year, 31,000 Women in Texas obtained their “Right-to-Carry” permit. That represents the largest number of women since Texan began issuing the permits. This increase of Ladies who carry represents the fastest growing demographic in guns today. And with good reason…
If you want to reduce violent crime, your best way is to teach a woman to protect herself. This involves more than packing a cell phone. This also goes beyond taking the advice of the Illinois State Police and making yourself vomit to repel an attacker. (I’m not making that up -> link.) Disarming the victim of most violent crimes does not solve the problem, it just makes easier targets.
The first change that need to take place is a change in attitude on the part of the normal citizen. We need to not only feel responsible for our own safety, but also we empowered to do just that. In my opinion, a Victim is anyone who cannot protect themselves. Just like a sheep is a sheep even if the wolf is far away.
Nobody normal wants to kill or hurt someone. That keeps many people from considering the ability to use lethal force if needed. Crystal Perry talks alot more about this in her Nov 29th 2010 Post at the Women’s Self Defense Network blog.
One thing I’ve always been puzzled on is how many women can hide a firearm, since most people carry concealed. For men, its usually a matter of wearing the same over-sized shirt and jeans. The problem for anyone who carries is that if it is a hassle to carry, they won’t. One of the best resources for “How to Carry” for women is a webpage called the CorneredCat.com The author addresses different holsters and lots of other good information. It also put to rest one idea, the bra holster is a total myth.
Last year in 2009 the University of Utah updated their Policy in dealing with people who Open Carry within 1000′ of campus. This policy applies to more than students and staff, but anyone who comes within 1/4 mile of campus. It is important to remember that other Utah Colleges follow the UofU in policy. This policy does effect many people living in the state.
To give a little legal background, Utah has a “Uniform Firearm Law” that only State Law may dictate firearm policy. This keeps the law uniform whether in the city, county, or campus. This law, in effect, makes any firearm policies that are outside state law non-enforceable.
The Uniform Law was used to protect Conceal Carry at College in Utah. The University of Utah had a heated legal battle with the Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. Result, the Uniform Law protects our second amendment rights from policies coming from non-elected officials.
So back in Sept 2009, the University of Utah released a revised Open Carry Policy for UofU police and security. The 09-09 Policy is linked here -> UofU_OC_Policy_09-09 Among the changes were the removal of “protective laws” cited and the emphasis on those laws that can be used to “throw the book”. It also cited their policy was given power by a opinion letter from the AG’s office (another story).
Come Fall 2010, I had the new UofU Policy leaked to me. The changes are even more disturbing. Knowing that the Attorney General was in opposition to the “Opinion Letter”, any reference to their acting under direction of the AG’s Office was removed. This is an attempt to gain law enforcement powers and remove a achilles heel from their bad policy. This Policy is here -> UofU_OC_Policy_09-10 .
The worse part goes beyond Firearm Laws. It a further example of the University’s reliance on inside legal council in giving direction to their appointed Chief of Campus Police. THe result is that the Attorney General and District Attourney has surrendered their law enforcement powers to the University’s lawyers. If the UofU Police force or Chief refuse to obey an illegal order, they will be fired. That a minute to think about this. How does this apply to other Constitutionally Protected Rights?
What do you think? This is a large issue. I encourage you to pass these documents around. Please download them from my site. I’ve ensured that the quality has remained high on the new policy PDF.