Dear Senator Weiler,
I am writing to support H.B. 1002 which you sponsored that repeals of parts of H.B. 225 (2023) that restrict the ability of nonimmigrants to possess firearms, specifically Utah Criminal Code 76-10-503 (1)(b)(xiii) and (4).
As a resident of California and a nonimmigrant in the United States, I was once a proud holder of a Utah CFP (Concealed Firearm Permit). Due to the limitations on firearm ownership in California, I am planning to relocate to another state after graduating from a California university, where I can have a means to protect myself if faced with danger. Utah has always been an excellent state for individuals like me to obtain a CFP. Unlike states such as New York and California that didn’t issue permits until the NYSRPA decision, or Florida, which denies permits to nonimmigrants, Utah has been welcoming. Unfortunately, with the enactment of H.B. 225, Utah has suddenly become one of the worst states in terms of nonimmigrants’ right to possess firearms.
Allow me to present several arguments that may further air in your consideration process:
Firstly, nonimmigrants are already subject to rigorous scrutiny in terms of firearm ownership and moral character. Federal law mandates that visas be issued only to individuals of good moral character. It would be unreasonable to believe that nonimmigrants pose a danger if they possess firearms, considering the restrictive processes and requirements already in place.
Secondly, the restriction imposed by H.B. 225 deviates from federal law and lacks logical coherence. Federal law generally prohibits nonimmigrants from owning firearms unless they meet the exceptions outlined in 18 U.S.C. 922 (y)(2). However, H.B. 225 only permits one category of nonimmigrants—those in the U.S. solely for hunting—to possess firearms. Firstly, under federal law, an immigrant may be admitted to the U.S. for hunting purposes (leisure), but not “solely” for hunting purposes, rendering the exemption in H.B. 225 inapplicable. Secondly, H.B. 225 eliminates the possibility for nonimmigrant students or workers living in Utah to hunt, even if they possess a hunting license. Thirdly, H.B. 225 disregards foreign law enforcement officers invited by the Department of State, contrary to federal law.
Thirdly, restricting nonimmigrants creates a reliance interest problem. As a Federal Firearm Licensee, I can envision nonimmigrant FFL holders like myself who chose to reside in Utah to pursue their hobby. H.B. 225 severely impacts these individuals who are trusted by the ATF and FBI, as their lawful activities overnight became illegal in Utah.
Furthermore, nonimmigrants in Utah and other states will lose their right to self-defense. Some nonimmigrant aliens, such as workers or students, reside in the U.S. for an extended period, and some eventually become permanent residents or U.S. citizens. However, criminals pose a threat not only to American citizens but to everyone in Utah. Restrictive legislation like this puts the lives of nonimmigrants in danger, as they are denied the means to protect themselves.
Additionally, nonimmigrants contribute to the Utah economy by paying taxes. Allowing us to purchase firearms also supports the firearm culture and firearm safety in Utah and the United States as a whole. I personally know nonimmigrant workers in Utah who are Utah CFP instructors, and I took my CFP course and followup pistol courses with them. Their rights to possess firearms, to carry a firearm concealed, and their certification to teach others was repealed by H.B. 225 overnight, and I believe that is inconsiderate and unfair.
Although I am not a constituent of Utah, I am directly affected by H.B. 225. Therefore, I sincerely support your H.B. 1002. If I were a resident of Utah, I would argue that restricting nonimmigrants from possessing firearms not only fails to serve the state’s interests but also potentially harms them.
Thank you for your consideration. I sincerely wish that your proposed bill could be passed.
Sincerely,
Kagamihara Nadeshiko
