Utah Governor Herbert Vetoes Constitutional Carry

Utah Governor Herbert swear to uphold the state constitution

“Gov. Gary Herbert has vetoed the constitutional carry bill passed by the Utah Legislature,” ksl.com reports. “HB76 — known as the constitutional carry bill — would allow residents of the state to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.” The Beehive State Governor’s logic: if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. “As a State, we must exercise extreme care that we not impose undue burdens on the right to bear arms,” Herbert wrote in a statement, “but I have yet to receive any credible evidence that Utah’s current permit process constitutes a hardship.” Right. ‘Cause laws infringing on the Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms should pass a “hardship” test. That said, the Utah state constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms but that nothing “shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.” [h/t Robert]


  1. avatar Dan Raidt says:

    I really have to agree with this and I am Pro Gun and Pro 2nd amendment

    There just are too many WACKOS out there for no check and balances

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Are you referring to politicians?

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        He must be. I can’t imagine who else he might be talking about.

    2. avatar Not Your Mother says:

      “WACKOS” don’t follow laws. Wake up.

    3. avatar Ron Burgundy says:

      The proper wackos are already prohibited persons and are commiting a felony when they are in possesion of a firearm, so that’s not a particularly strong reason I’d say.

      Otherwise, if your record is clean, you can get the permit if you have some minimal “training”. It just takes time. And taking time is also an issue. If a person all of a sudden comes under a relatively higher level of threat, it’ll be some time before they can legally CC and protect themselves. From what I saw UT prohibits open carry.

      You may say “what is this ‘all of a sudden higher threat level’ nonsense you’re babbling about?”, for which there are a few fairly common examples:
      – Relational/marital breakups that don’t go too well
      – Some sort of neighborhood conflict

      I’d rather be able to CC if I didn’t have a permit in such situations, rather than having to hope for the wacko’s mercy.

      You can’t always prevent criminals and crazies from doing bad things, but you can give the good guys a fighting chance.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        I’m glad I live in an open carry state, even though I’ve never used this right, it’s still there.

      2. avatar BHPshooter says:

        Utah is an open-carry state, but that doesn’t mean the cops won’t harass you, or even better, that a scared soccer mom won’t call the cops on you… That happened to a friend last week.

    4. avatar Michael B. says:

      It shouldn’t be a crime to carry a gun or require licensing to carry one because the act in and of itself isn’t harmful.

      How the gun is used (if it is used) is what matters and Utah’s amendment implies as much. Note, it says: “nothing shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.”

      A gun in a holster and on the hip isn’t being used and state constitutions around the US make the distinction between carrying and use

      Furthermore I don’t think you understand what checks and balances are. Separation of powers and “checks and balances” apply to government. They’re there to keep the executive, legislative, and judicial branches competing with one another and thereby checking and balancing each other’s power.

      Educate yourself and please stop screwing over your fellow peaceable citizens. That’s what the politicians are for.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        “It shouldn’t be a crime to carry a gun or require licensing to carry one because the act in and of itself isn’t harmful.

        Furthermore I don’t think you understand what checks and balances are. Separation of powers and “checks and balances” apply to government. They’re there to keep the executive, legislative, and judicial branches competing with one another and thereby checking and balancing each other’s power.”

        Absolutely. Rights are rights, and must not be converted into privileges.

        But I take small issue with the phrase “competing with one another”.
        Actually, it’s to keep them from COLLUDING with one another.

    5. avatar RKflorida says:

      Don’t know how to break this to you Dan, but the wackos are already carrying without a permit. And they will continue to do so.

    6. avatar joey s says:

      So tell me more about these “wackos” that don’t carry a gun because of the law?

    7. avatar scottlac says:

      The “lawful use of arms” has nothing to do with carrying arms. It has to do with pulling them out and using them. So, they are infringing.

    8. avatar Greg says:

      Those “wackos”, don’t care about that regulation! They will hide the gun anyway. Now us that do care, wont be armed to stop them… THINK man, you are not pro 2nd ammendment, but seem to be pro control. He is just trying to look good to the church leadership and the general media dumbed down public. Gun laws only effect law abbiding Citizens. Laws do not effect the crimminals, they do what they want anyway.

    1. avatar CaribooLou says:

      Exactly, residents of Utah should stop bitching.

      1. avatar TTACer says:

        Difficult to tell with text, I hope that is sarcasm.

        1. avatar William Burke says:

          You hope WHAT is sarcasm?

        2. avatar TTACer says:

          I hope CaribooLou is being sarcastic when he says that “residents of Utah should stop bitching”

          Because a) they should not, and b) being vocal about the abrogation of your fundamental human rights cannot be considered “bitching”

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      My “good and substantial reason” is that I’m a citizen of the United States of America. Natural-born, even!

      1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

        Sorry, not good enough. Well, at least not in Jersey.

  2. avatar DDay says:

    It works for Vermont, LIBERAL VERMONT, it should be fine for Utah. Every state should be constitutional carry.

    1. avatar Gyufygy says:

      I laugh whenever I’m reminded that hippy Vermont has had Constitutional Carry longer than anybody else. Just such a switch on what you’d expect.

    2. avatar Tama Paine says:

      I agree in the main. But till there is One Rule To Ring Them All regarding national carry (meaning a return to the Constitution), there will be states that try to keep people from exercising that right. And I think we all know how that is going to go.

      I don’t like this decision in the ideal sense, but I think it was the right one, and I think you’d agree if, like many of us, you relied on your UT CC to carry in states which recognize it. For Gov. Herbert to sign this into law would have meant that all those who depend on UT resident and nonresident permits for that, would lose it when in other (reciprocity) states.

      My UT permit assures me a high degree of ability to move from state to state, in combination with my other permits. Now I can actually drive across the nation again and not have to surrender my right to defend myself against, oh, say, queer bashers and folks who hate minorities and old people with a disability.

      I dislike and resent permitting–IMO the Second Amendment reminds everyone that my permit is inborn, not granted by any government.

      But till we can re-establish a majority of Americans who aren’t trying to turn this republic into Britain or Australia or Canada, or some globalized corporate hell Matrix, we’ve got to use state law to take a stand for the rights of the law-abiding to claim their human and civil rights that are prior to the constitution of our, or any, government.

      1. avatar reacherJ80 says:

        The current Utah permit system would not have changed with passage of the bill. One more s still required to have a permit to carry in a loaded manner.

      2. avatar BHPshooter says:

        The permit system would have remained in place, and many people, like me, would continue to renew it for the legal ability to carry with my gun fully loaded, to carry on school premises, to carry on buses and taxis, and to take advantage of out-of-state reciprocity.

        This would have done (or will do, if the veto is overridden) nothing to out-of-state permit holders.

  3. avatar aj says:

    My understanding is that the law would have allowed concealed carry of an UNLOADED firearm only. Pretty useless if you ask me, and a permit is easy enough to get.

    1. avatar Ben in UT says:

      “Utah unloaded” means two actions away from firing. For example, semi-autos are often carried with an empty chamber, and revolvers are required to be carried so two trigger pulls are required to fire.

      1. avatar C says:

        A wheel gun with two empty chambers? that’s asinine.

        1. avatar Brock says:

          I think that means 1 empty chamber, no?

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      UP THEIRS with their “easy permits”. I don’t NEED no steenkin’ PERMIT.

    3. avatar BHPshooter says:

      I agree, the “unloaded” requirement is stupid (even though a pistol in Condition 3 is legally unloaded in Utah) but overall this is a step in the right direction. After a year or two of demonstrating that this would not, in fact, lead to “blood in the streets,” it would be comparatively easy to change the part of the law that requires the gun to be unloaded.

  4. avatar DDay says:

    Because the wacko is going to no kill or have access to a gun because hey don’t have a permit? Wacko in CT didn’t have a permit, he just stole them.

  5. avatar ST says:

    He pulled a Daugaard.

    That’s the name of South Dakota’s governor, who vetoed a Constitutional Carry proposal for the same reasons. Essentially, “shall issue is good enough.”

    Looks like this year’s election season’s gonna be a busy one. Time to set a turnover record all over the country, assuming enough of us care about our rights to hit the polls.

    1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      I was going to say it look like to governor just shot himself in the foot, pun intended!

      1. avatar Gyufygy says:

        He’s going to wish he’d carried on an empty chamber.

        Begin the punishment!

    2. avatar William Burke says:

      I’ll care a hell of a lot more when decent candidates are allowed to campaign on an equal footing with the Republicrats.

  6. avatar Dave says:

    At least it keeps the concept of constitutional carry clean. It seems wrong to call carrying without a round in the chamber by that lofty name. It will still be interesting to see if the legislature goes for an override.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      What’s wrong is carrying without one in the pipe. Unloaded carry, open or concealed, is barely better than no carry.

      1. avatar William Burke says:

        Yep. Empty chamber carry should be an option, not a requirement. A couple of close calls earlier in life have led me to the empty chamber option (ECO).

  7. avatar crstrode says:

    Emperor Herbert’s annulment of the will of the people, and abrogation of the duly elected legislature’s decisions certainly sounds Obamaesque.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Yeah, well I bet that a bunch of gun owners in Colorado wished their governor had had the balls to abrogate the duly elected legislature’s recent decisions. just as we here in California hope that our governor does the same after the Legislature passes the most stringent gun control laws in the country….The power of the veto is given to the governor in all fifty states; it is not a dictatorial power, it is a balancing of power designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority in appropriate cases.

      1. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

        Fair nuff, I just hope voters remember when he’s up for reelection…

    2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      veto is within his rights, not an abuse of his given authority. Whether he was right to do so is another issue. If he had declared carry illegal by edict, that would be a more immediate issue. Obama is capable of trying this, I think.

  8. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    As a previous poster mentioned – The Utah law would only allow UNLOADED firearms. Governor Herbert is a CFP holder and understands the ramifications. It’s not about wackos, it’s about the 2nd Amendment. Utah has, perhaps, the least restrictive CFP requirements in THE UNITED STATES. You don’t have to go to a range to qualify, you simply attend a short classroom instruction. When I renew my CFP next year, I’ll only have to go online and pay a small fee. Please consider these factors…

    1. avatar Michael B. says:

      He could’ve told them he’d veto it until they fixed that, but he didn’t, did he?

      It’s safe to assume he’s against constitutional carry in general.

      1. avatar Ed Rogers says:

        I doubt that Herbert is against constitutional carry, especially since he is a CFP holder himself.

        Here’s a contradiction: Many of us pro-2A folks claim that the “gun-grabbing liberals” have fallen victim to the “waving of the bloody shirt” emotional outcries. Yet, many of us appear to be falling victim to the emotional outcries of the waving of the Constitution 😉

        1. avatar LongBeach says:

          Huh… Good comment… Not quite sure if I agree with you completely, but youndefinitely got the gears turning

        2. avatar Michael B. says:

          I doubt that Herbert is against constitutional carry, especially since he is a CFP holder himself.

          Here’s a contradiction: Many of us pro-2A folks claim that the “gun-grabbing liberals” have fallen victim to the “waving of the bloody shirt” emotional outcries. Yet, many of us appear to be falling victim to the emotional outcries of the waving of the Constitution.

          You doubt he’s against constitutional carry? Are you serious? What did he just do? He vetoed a bill that would’ve legalized constitutional carry and I’ve seen no evidence that he did it because of the idiotic unloaded provision.

          If that was the case it would’ve made more sense for him to do what I suggested.

          And what does him being a CFP holder have to do with anything? I’ve seen no evidence that he supports constitutional carry.

          Furthermore he said that permitting isn’t an undue burden. I disagree. If you have to ask permission to do something and pay money for the privilege, it’s just that: a privilege. Not a right.

          And I am not appealing to emotion nor “waving the constitution.” WTF is that even supposed to mean?

          I’m dispassionately arguing for more liberty and asserting that if it requires permission to do it’s not a right. I’m also saying that permitting in and of itself is an infringement of our right to keep and bear arms.

          Your comment is complete nonsense.

          You people who are satisfied with the status quo, because you don’t think it’s a big deal, when you have a chance to increase your liberty are misguided, passive, and far too subservient and deferential to those in power.

          It’s really quite disgusting.

    2. avatar rosignol says:

      Washington state requires a clean record and $60. You can read the pamphlet if you want, but the closest thing there is to a test is filling out your address on the form (they mail it to you).

      1. avatar Brock says:

        Indiana is the same except a lifetime is $125 and I think $80 for a 4 year. No class, no test. Then again, don’t be in a hurry, the wait is around 4 months right now.

        1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

          PA is also BG check and a fee. As I recall, 60 days but my turn around was much faster. Except for Philly, which is de facto may issue.

        2. avatar Brock says:

          In the past the turn around was around 2 weeks, the ISP is supposedly getting something like 1200% more applications than usual since around December 15th, for whatever reason. The law says they have 90 days but as we know, the government isn’t required to follow the laws.

    3. avatar Zac says:

      I still think having to pay for your right to carry is crap. You want to talk out in public that will be $200. How well would that go over?

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    This seems to be a trend — Con Carry approved by the legislatures in Montana (2011), South Dakota (2012) and Utah (2013), only to be vetoed by the Ruler. Call me suspicious, but it looks like the whole thing is just a show for the voters. The state reps get to go back to their communities bragging that they voted for or against while knowing full well that Con Carry would never become law. The reps then get their payoff from MAIG or the NRA. Like everything else that government does, this too is a scam.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      Arizona (2010) did work. But once reelected, Brewer vetoed campus carry.

    2. avatar Michael B. says:

      I’m of the same opinion, Ralph.

  10. avatar Nor'Easter says:

    Wow, so nice to hear an argument of this sort. “Constitutional Carry” is just a dream around these parts. Bask in the glow of “shall issue” and stop complaining – we’re dying of jealousy up here!

    Vermont is an exception not because of all the old hippy-dippies up there but because of the old-time Yankees – “Vemontas” – buried away up in the hills, how long they can hold on against the “Peoples Republic of Burlington” I don’t know.

    In the end though, a veto against the will of the Legislature does seem a bit excessive.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      The one to watch is whether Alabama will switch from may to shall issue this year. The bill seems to be stalled – the sheriffs want to keep their discretion.

  11. avatar TTACer says:

    I don’t see anything wrong with shall issue (vs. constitutional carry) under certain constraints. After all, literacy tests and poll taxes are perfectly legal…

  12. avatar mediocrates says:

    once you surrender your rights, good luck getting them back.

  13. avatar Nor'Easter says:

    Very droll TTACer and quite correct!

  14. avatar BHPshooter says:

    I’m a Utah CFP Instructor, and I’m really pissed about this. Gov Herbert says, “I have yet to receive any credible evidence that Utah’s current permit process constitutes a hardship.”

    I have taught more than a thousand people over the last 5 years, and occasionally someone would come to me that was in very real, very imminent danger. All these people (most of them women) have to do is:
    – Find or schedule a class
    – Get fingerprinted
    – Get a passport photo made
    – Photocopy their driver’s license
    – Pay $46 to Utah
    – Wait patiently for up to 60 days for the permit to arrive in the mail.

    Gee, do you think if we wrote the scumbag a nicely-worded letter that he’d cease hostilities for 60 days until his intended target could get the permit in the mail?

    Tell THEM that the permitting process isn’t a hardship.

    And yes, this bill would not have been “true” Constitutional Carry. It was gutted early-on in the legislative session… but it is still a step in the right direction.

    Local press has been claiming that “this bill would have effectively done away with carry permits,” which is also incredibly false.

    This bill essentially just takes the open carry law and makes it so that you’re not a criminal if you put on a jacket.

    Many people, like me, who want to be able to carry with a round in the chamber, who
    want to be able to carry in schools or on buses, and who want to take advantage of reciprocity with other states. You’ll still have non-residents applying because they want the reciprocity that their own permits don’t have.

    This bill did pass with a veto-proof majority, so hopefully they’ll have the balls to stand with their constituents and override the veto.


    1. avatar Michael B. says:

      Wes, thanks for your good work.

      You may want to try to talk some sense into the Utahans above who are satisfied with the status quo and are never exposed to the people who are obviously burdened by the permitting process.

  15. avatar Scott says:

    So has anyone else noticed that the bill passed 22 to 7, and thus has a sufficient majority to override the veto? I know the KSL article claims it never had enough support to do that, but the Utah State Legislature’s website confirms that it passed with a significant majority. http://le.utah.gov/DynaBill/svotes.jsp?sessionid=2013GS&voteid=1548&house=S

  16. avatar Oddux says:

    He’s either now secured his defeat when he comes up to be re-elected or he’s just proven the SLC liberals are going to do to Utah what Denver did to Colorado.

    A shame too, I was going to laugh when Constutional Carry made us the first state with a negative score from the Brady Bunch, and still one of the 10 safest states in the Union.

  17. avatar Sean says:

    Conceal carry permits are tax revenue generators giving up something that creates revenue for the state is difficult for a politician to do.

    1. avatar Pat says:

      Bingo. Money, money, money.

  18. avatar Wrex Allen says:

    For the people, by the people…..not.
    These joker politicians need to go. They do not represent their constituants, at all.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email