The Salt Lake Tribune

Washington • A proposal, passed by the U.S. House on Wednesday, would allow a person with a Utah concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in California, New York, and just about every other state, whether officials there liked it or not.

Supported by Utah’s three House members, the bill requires every state that issues a concealed permit to accept the permits offered elsewhere, though state restrictions on where and how a person must carry that weapon would remain in effect. The only two areas that don’t allow permits are Illinois and Washington, D.C.

“This bill simplifies what is now a piecemeal system of reciprocal agreements among the states,” said Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, who said millions of people have concealed weapons permits. “By passing this bill we will ensure that when they travel to other states they will exercise their right to self-defense while away from home.”

Matheson’s opinion was clearly in the minority among Democrats. He was one of 43 Democrats who joined with 229 Republicans in supporting the legislation.

Most Democrats argued the legislation would allow people to obtain permits from the least restrictive states, such as Utah, negating more stringent training requirements.

“For a Republican majority that supposedly believes in states’ rights, this is shocking,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, leads a GOP states’ rights group, and he rejected Nadler’s argument as typical rhetoric from politicians who simply dislike guns.

“This is a fake argument used against the bill,” Bishop said. “They don’t want people to want guns. Period.”

Bishop, a former gun-rights lobbyist and member of the Second Amendment Caucus of the House, argues that states can still set restrictions on where permit holders can carry a weapon and what crimes or actions would make a person ineligible to secretly pack a gun.

“I don’t see this one as violating the rights of states; the standards are still there,” he said.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has a permit and occasionally carries a weapon in Utah, but not elsewhere.

“I have not carried in other states,” he said. “It does bother me that I couldn’t carry in Washington, D.C., probably one place I need it more than most.”

He believes the constitutional right to carry a weapon should be “permit enough,” but if permits are required he thinks they should apply across state boundaries.

Utah’s Legislature agrees and has tried to craft a permit that is easy to get and broadly accepted throughout the states. As of October, more than 338,000 people hold Utah permits and 57 percent of them live outside of the state’s borders.

Permit holders have reciprocity in 32 other states — but Nevada and New Mexico aren’t among them. Those states stopped accepting Utah’s permit because it doesn’t require people to practice firing a weapon.

In reaction, the state Legislature earlier this year passed a law requiring out-of-state applicants to get a permit in their home state before applying for a Utah license.

Utah state Sen. John Valentine, who sponsored that law, said his goal was to maintain and even increase the number of states that recognized Utah’s permit, making it a de facto national permit.

But Valentine’s effort could backfire if the House bill becomes new federal law, because no one living out of state would apply to get a second permit from Utah, which could cost the state significant revenue. Utah permits cost $65 for people living in the state and $70 for those living elsewhere.

Valentine has tracked the congressional bill, which will face an uphill fight in the Democratic controlled Senate.

“If they can pass it, we probably want to revisit our statute,” he said.