Something unintended happens
So, it must be a loophole. Bonus in that it involves guns:
An apparent “loophole” in Arizona’s concealed weapon permit system may be prompting some people – including convicted felons – to get more easily obtained, cheaper Utah CCW permits instead.
Under a reciprocal agreement, Arizona is required to accept permits issued by Utah and six other states.
Actually, reciprocity is pretty much standard operating procedure for shall issue states. Sounds to me like they maybe ought to ask Utah to do background checks.
Good thing loophole is in quotes, or we might think it’s a real one this time.
Update: Xrlq notes in comments that only non-residents can rely on the out of state permit. As such, there is no loophole at all.
Update 2: Xrlq has more, in which he retracts his reversal. Huh?
February 8th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
[…] Paul Allen of the Tucson Citizen writes on a strange loophole (h/t: Uncly Wuncly) in Arizona law that allows Arizona residents who fail to […]
February 8th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
I was thinking of becoming Utah Instructor Certified to make a few extra bucks training people here for their out-of-State Utah license.
Still have not gotten NRA Certified in anything, so it is staying in the “might do one-of-these-days” category.
February 8th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Reciprocity may be the norm for out of staters (I know my UT permit is valid in AZ) but I would have thought most right to carry states would require their residents to hold an in-state permit. If AZ isn’t going to do that, they might as well reduce their requirements to match UT’s. Of course that won’t happen until they have a Republican governor.
February 8th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Also, why the sneer quotes around “loophole?” If the law does something unintended, isn’t that the classic definition of the word?
February 8th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
I looked it up. Scroll down to Subsection U, and it is clear only nonresidents can rely on an out of state permit. Thus, there is neither a “loophole” nor a loophole, just another instance of journalistic malpractice.
February 8th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
The sneer quotes appear in the original article. Probably because, as you said, it’s made up.
February 8th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Crap, I have to re-reverse myself. This may be the first time in my life I’ve encountered a journalistic screw-up that doesn’t favor the gun control position. Upon a more careful reading, the relevant subsection is (T), not (U). Subsection (T), the reciprocity provision, is silent as to residency. Subsection (U), the one Chuck Gray quoted from, allows nonresidents of non-reciprocal states to carry under certain circumstances. If Gray can’t tell you what his own law does, that’s about as good an example of a loophole as it gets.
February 8th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
CWP Reciprocity in Arizona
Paul Allen of the Tucson Citizen writes on a strange loophole (h/t: Uncly Wuncly) in Arizona law that allows Arizona residents who fail to qualify for concealed weapons permits under the laws of their own state to rely on a more easily obtained Utah pe…
February 8th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
I know, like Kerry, I didn’t flip flop. Here’s my final answer: there is indeed a loophole, but it’s not a big enough loophole to be worth worrying about. It’s good for cheap bastards who want to pay a lower fee, and for lazy bastards who want to take a shorter training course and renew their permits every 5 years rather than 4, but that’s about it.