Gun Control Act Of 1968

This Legislation regulated interstate and foreign commerce in firearms, including importation, “prohibited persons”, and licensing provisions. After the assassinations of President John Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Gun Control Act is passed and imposes stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry, establishes new categories of firearms offenses, and prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons and certain other prohibited persons. It also imposes the first Federal jurisdiction over “destructive devices,” including bombs, mines, grenades and other similar devices. Congress reorganizes ATU into the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD) and delegates to them the enforcement of the Gun Control Act. “Forget the democratic processes, the judicial system and the talent for organization that have long been the distinctive marks of the U.S. Forget, too, the affluence (vast, if still not general enough) and the fundamental respect for law by most Americans. From the nation’s beginnings, in fact and fiction, the gun has been provider and protector.” Though the 1968 law was a victory of sorts for gun-control activists, many were disappointed it didn’t include a registry of firearms or federal licensing requirements for gun owners. TIME reported, “It may take another act of horror to push really effective gun curbs through Congress.” Those dynamics the disappointment of gun-control activists, particularly after moments of tragedy, running up against the very real place of guns in American society may sound familiar.

What are the most important things the law changed?

It banned interstate shipments of firearms and ammunition to private individuals [and] sales of guns to minors, drug addicts and “mental incompetents.” This is the first time you have in law that mentally unbalanced people ought not to be able to get gun also convicted felons. It also strengthened the licensing and record-keeping requirements for gun dealers, and that was significant because gun dealers were subject to virtually no systematic scrutiny up until this time, although a 1938 federal law did establish a fee they paid to government to be a licensed dealer. It banned importation of foreign-made surplus firearms, except those The President of the NRA, who had testified before Congress about the bill had said [paraphrasing], ‘We’re not thrilled with this, but we can live with it. I think it’s reasonable.’ The fact that he would concede there’s any such thing as a reasonable gun control legislation that represented the prevailing point of view of NRA leadership at the time, from 1968 to the late 1970s. Portions of the ’68 law were modified by a law passed by Congress in 1986, the Firearms Owners Protections Act, which sought to repeal even more of the law. It didn’t succeed, but the 1986 law does repeal or modify or blunt some of the aspects of the ’68 law. [It does that] by amending the ’68 law to allow for the interstate sale of rifles and shotguns as long as it was legal in the states of the buyer and seller, eliminating certain record-keeping requirements for ammunition dealers, and making it easier for individuals selling guns to do so without a license. The 1986 federal law was the culmination of the effort to try to roll back the 1968 law. The gun issue hadn’t been politicized in the ’60s the way it has been in the last few decades, where it has become even more angry and strident; 1968 was a year of political assassinations that shocked the nation. One of the great myths is the idea that gun-control laws are an artefact of the modern era, the 20th century. Gun laws are as old as America, literally to the very early colonial beginnings of the nation. From the beginning of the late 1600s to the end of the 1800s, gun laws were everywhere, thousands of gun laws of every imaginable variety. You find virtually every state in the union enacting laws that bar people from carrying concealed weapons. That’s something people don’t realize. The GCA is the main federal law that governs the interstate commerce of firearms in the United States. Specifically, the GCA prohibits firearms commerce across state lines except between licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers. Under the GCA, any individual or company that wants to partake in commercial activity dealing with the manufacture or importation of firearms and ammunition or the interstate and intrastate sale of firearms must possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Procedural jargon notwithstanding, the enactment of 1968 GCA was a watershed moment in US politics. It was the first piece of legislation that put the gun control debate on the map.

Political Context of the GCA

It should be noted that the GCA was not the first piece of gun control passed at the federal level. In 1934, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the National Firearms Act of 1934 into law. The first comprehensive gun law at the federal level, the NFA taxed and mandated registration of certain firearms such as machine guns, sawed-off rifles, and sawed-off shotguns. This law was passed under the pretext of addressing mob-style violence during Prohibition, but a careful review of the New Deal era shows how the NFA was just another piece of FDR’s unprecedented social engineering program. This NFA was followed up by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which created a precursor to the 1968 GCA’s FFL system. Despite the government’s encroachments on gun rights, the federal government stayed away from further regulation for the next three decades. The passage of the GCA wasn’t without its fair share of opposition. Groups like the National Rifle Association, which traditionally focused on conservation and outdoor niches, were compelled to take nominally pro-gun stances. However, the NRA wasn’t alone. Groups like Gun Owners of America came into the spotlight, positioning themselves as a “no compromise” alternative to NRA. By the early 1980s, pro-gun lobbies would become pivotal actors in the never-ending circus of DC politics.

deas are Still Key

As the days go by, gun rights appear to be gradually falling down the path of statist micromanagement. But there’s something more fundamental to this trend than the cliché aphorism of eternal vigilance and conventional strategies of political activism. It really comes down to the battle of ideas. The GCA is a child of the New Deal and Great Society mindset that views the government as an omnipotent administrator of human affairs. A paradigm shift in ideas is needed to break free from this top-down vision of society. Until then, gun lobbies face an uphill battle. A solid first step is for gun owners to recognize that infringements like the GCA of 1968 must never be tolerated by anyone who believes in the right to self-defense. After three decades of quiescence in the arena of gun control politics, the turmoil of the 1960s unleashed a wave of demand for new gun control legislation. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963, prompted the country to focus on the regulation of firearms. Then the urban riots beginning in 1964 and the 1968 assassinations of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy fueled an inferno of outrage that demanded congressional action. In the wake of these acts of violence the U.S. Congress enacted the Gun Control Act which President Lyndon B. Johnson signed in 1968. Although the Gun Control Act did not contain the owner licensing and gun registration provisions that President Johnson desired, the act, along with the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act passed by Congress months earlier, contained the most significant restrictions on firearms since Congress enacted the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IN THE 1960s

A highly controversial bill that precipitated emotional debate and ferocious political battles, the Gun Control Act travelled quite a convoluted path prior to its ultimate approval by Congress. It started down its torturous road in 1963 when Senator Thomas J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, championed legislation geared specifically at tightening restrictions on the sale of mail-order handguns. After President Kennedy was murdered with a military-style rifle obtained through the mail, Senator Dodd extended the reach of the legislation to include “long guns,” including rifles and shotguns. The legislation met an early demise when it was held up in the Commerce Committee and not allowed out for a vote on the Senate floor. Interestingly, the National Rifle Association (NRA) leaders initially supported the measures and even engaged in drafting Dodd’s bill. Yet the NRA leadership did not wish to alienate its more radical rank and file, so they neglected to divulge this to their members. Instead, in a letter to each of its affiliates, the NRA claimed its executive vice-president testified against the bill and prevented it from being voted out of Committee.

The NRA publication The Rifleman criticized the bill as a product of “irrational emotionalism,” and the first four issues of The Rifleman in 1964 dedicated more than thirty columns to firearms legislation, never telling its members of the NRA leadership’s support of the bill. These publications provoked the grass roots members to send off a great number of angry letters opposing the bill to Congress. In 1965 President Johnson aggressively endorsed the cause of fighting crime and regulating firearms by spearheading a new, strict gun control measure that Dodd introduced in the Senate. But the Johnson administration’s proposal suffered a string of defeats over the next three years because of heavy pressure from the NRA, key congressional leaders who supported them, the American Legion, and gun importers, manufacturers, and dealers. Adding to the administration’s difficulties was the lack of an organized pro–gun control lobby to check the relentless onslaughts against the legislation by the NRA. In 1968 President Johnson and his administration intensified their efforts. Johnson began using the bully pulpit of the presidency to chide Congress publicly to enact his gun control policy. In his 1968 State of the Union address, Johnson exhorted Congress to pass a gun control law that would stop “mail order murder.” And months later, President Johnson conveyed to Congress, in no uncertain terms, his desire for crime legislation that required national registration of every gun in America and licenses for all gun owners. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate responded to the president’s admonishment in short order. Congressional representatives carefully, and often vociferously, argued about the provisions of the president’s crime legislation. The measure, titled the Safe Streets and Crime Control Bill, received stiff resistance from gun control opponents.

NRA OPPOSITION TO THE ACT

By 1968 the leadership of the NRA was fully against any and all gun regulations. The group undertook a mass-mailing lobbying effort to undermine the legislation. Their organized lobbying efforts proved successful in wiping out much of the support for gun licensing and registration restrictions. Congress eventually enacted the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act, a watered-down version of the Johnson administration’s anticrime and gun control proposal. The act prohibited the interstate shipment of pistols and revolvers to individuals, but it specifically exempted rifles and shotguns from any regulations. With the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy on June 5, 1968, the groundswell of support for tough gun control laws reached unprecedented levels. On June 6, the day after the Kennedy assassination, Johnson signed the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act, but lamented the law’s weak provisions. President Johnson, who had proposed gun control measures every year since becoming president, appeared on national television imploring Congress to pass a new and tougher gun control law that banned mail-order and out-of-state sales of long guns and ammunition. Reading a letter he sent to Congress, Johnson pleaded to Congress “in the name of sanity… in the name of safety and in the name of an aroused nation to give America the gun-control law it needs.” On June 24, President Johnson again addressed the country, calling for mandatory national gun registration and licenses for every gun owner. Around this time, polls showed that approximately 80 percent of Americans favoured gun registration laws. The public flooded members of Congress with letters demanding greater regulation of guns. Protestors picketed the Washington headquarters of the NRA. Even many members of Congress who had been staunch adversaries of strict firearms regulation crossed over to the other side and rallied in favour of a tough gun control bill.

ORGANIZED GUN CONTROL EFFORTS

Pro–gun control advocates mobilized and constructed an effective pro–gun control pressure group called the Emergency Committee for Gun Control. The bipartisan organization was headed by Colonel John H. Glenn, Jr., a former astronaut and friend of Senator Robert Kennedy. The Committee, comprising volunteer staffers who had worked for Senator Kennedy before he was assassinated, received extensive support from a variety of organizations such as the American Bankers Association, the AFL-CIO, the Conference of Mayors, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Attorneys General, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Riding a wave of support, the Committee sought to counteract the highly organized and resource-laden NRA. Their efforts proved somewhat effective, but ultimately fell short of the group’s goal of a comprehensive scheme of gun registration and gun owner licensing. Facing this unprecedented, widespread push for gun control, the NRA became highly energized and rallied against the president’s proposed regulations. National Rifle Association executive vice-president Franklin L. Orth argued publicly that no law, existing or proposed, could have prevented the murder of Senator Kennedy. On June 15, 1968, the NRA mailed a letter to its members calling for them to write their members of Congress to oppose any new firearms laws. Using hyperbole and emotionally charged rhetoric, NRA President Harold W. Glassen wrote that the right of sportsmen to obtain, own, and use firearms for a legal purpose was in grave jeopardy. Furthermore, Glassen wrote, the clear goal of gun control proponents was complete abolition of civilian ownership of guns. Senator Joseph D. Tydings, Democrat of Maryland, who had introduced the provisions requiring licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, responded to this accusation in a press conference calling the letter “calculated hysteria” and saying no bill would prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns. Nevertheless, Glassen’s tactic effectively energized the membership of the NRA, then 900,000 strong, just as the public outcry calling for more firearms regulations was dissipating. Whereas Congress had encountered overwhelming support for more gun control measures in the week after Senator Kennedy’s death, by late June and early July they reported the majority of the letters from constituents indicated opposition to any new gun control provisions. The battle over the president’s proposals continued in the halls of Congress in typical fashion, featuring emotionally charged debates and supporters split along specific demographic and ideological lines. In the House, opponents argued against a registration provision claiming it would be costly and ineffective in preventing crime. In the Senate, Dodd attacked the NRA, decrying its tactics of “blackmail, intimidation and unscrupulous propaganda.” The licensing and registration provisions, backed solidly by northern liberals, were easily defeated in both the House of Representatives and Senate by a conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats. However, the provisions banning mail-order and out-of-state sales of long guns and ammunition fared better, passing both the House and Senate. Eastern and Midwestern members of Congress overwhelmingly supported these measures, while those from the South and West were much less supportive. Members of Congress representing urban areas staunchly supported the bill, whereas those from rural sections of the country voted against it in significant numbers.

PROVISIONS OF THE GUN CONTROL ACT

On October 22, President Johnson signed into law the Gun Control Act of 1968—an instrument which, just months earlier, was considered a lost cause because of staunch opposition. The signing of the legislation represented a significant political win for the president, Senator Dodd, and other gun control advocates who had struggled for years to pass a gun control bill that would effect real change. Enacted pursuant to the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, the legislation had three major features. First, it prohibited interstate traffic in firearms and ammunition. Second, it denied guns to specific classes of individuals such as felons, minors, fugitives, drug addicts, and the mentally ill. Third, it prohibited the importation of surplus military weapons into the United States as well as guns and ammunition not federally certified as sporting weapons or souvenirs. As is usually the case in American politics, the statute did not signify a complete victory for either side. Advocates of gun control failed to get provisions requiring owner licensing and firearms registration, yet gun control opponents, typically NRA members, suffered another setback to their goal of removing governmental regulation of firearms. This partial defeat for the NRA served as the group’s wake-up call, energizing and expanding the membership of the NRA who suddenly felt politically vulnerable. Yet unlike the NRA, the pro–gun control advocates were not organized for long-term pressure politics, and their political influence began to wane. Thus in 1986 the NRA successfully weakened the provisions of the 1968 act by spearheading the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act.

Utah Gun Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a Gun Attorney in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC
8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C
West Jordan, Utah
84088 United States
Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Self Defense In Utah

Will A Chapter 13 Plan Look Better On My Credit Report Than Chapter 7?

Why Draining Your Retirement To Save A Doomed House From Foreclosure Before Filing Bankruptcy Is A Mistake

The Cook Islands Trust

Business Structure

Local Probate Lawyer

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/gun-control-act-of-1968/

Local Probate Lawyer

A probate lawyer is a state licensed attorney who works with the executors and the beneficiaries of an estate to settle the affairs of the decedent. In some instances, probate can be avoided if all the decedent’s assets have been placed in a trust. A trust can ensure a smooth transfer of property outside of court and legal proceedings.

Is a probate lawyer the same as an estate attorney?

A probate lawyer is also known as an estate attorney and will be involved in different ways depending on the particular circumstances of that estate. Their involvement will depend on the value of the decedent’s assets and whether or not they had a last will and testament at the time they passed away. In cases where no will exists, beneficiaries file claims and sue for what they believe they are entitled to. In situations where there is a will, challenges may arise as to the validity of the will, also leading to possible litigation.

What does a probate lawyer do?

Specifically, here are some of the common tasks a probate lawyer may assist an executor and beneficiaries with during The Probate Process:
• Collecting proceeds from life insurance policies
• Identifying and securing estate assets
• Obtaining appraisals for the decedent’s real property
• Assisting in the payment of bills and debts
• Preparing and filing all documents required by a probate court
• Determining if any estate or inheritance taxes are due, and making sure those debts are satisfied
• Resolving income tax issues
• Managing the estate checking account
• Transferring assets in the decedent’s name to the appropriate beneficiaries
• Making a final disbursement of assets to beneficiaries after all bills and taxes have been paid

Hiring a Probate Lawyer: With a Will

The process will likely go smoother when the decedent has drafted a will prior to his or her death. If an individual dies with a will, a probate lawyer may be hired to advise parties such as the executor of the estate or a beneficiary on various legal matters. For instance, an attorney may review the will to ensure the will wasn’t signed or written under duress (or against the best interests of the individual). Elderly people with dementia, for example, may be vulnerable to undue influence by individuals who want a cut of the estate. There are numerous reasons that wills may be challenged, although most wills go through probate without a problem. Additionally, a probate attorney may be responsible for performing any of the following tasks when advising an executor:

• Collecting and managing life insurance proceeds;
• Getting the decedent’s property appraised;
• Finding and securing all of the decedent’s assets;
• Advising on how to pay the decedent’s bills and settle debts;
• Preparing/filing documents as required by probate court;
• Managing the estate’s check-book; and
• Determining whether any estate taxes are owed.

Hiring a Probate Lawyer: Without a Will

If you die without having written and signed a will, you are said to have died “intestate.” When this happens, your estate is distributed according to the intestacy laws of the state where the property resides, regardless of your wishes. For instance, the surviving spouse receives all of your intestate property under many states’ intestate laws. However, intestacy laws vary widely from state to state. In these situations, a probate lawyer may be hired to assist the administrator of the estate (similar to the executor) and the assets will be distributed according to state law. A probate lawyer may help with some of the tasks listed above but is bound by state intestacy laws, regardless of the decedent’s wishes or the family members’ needs. A relative who wants to be the estate’s administrator must first secure what are called “renunciations” from the decedent’s other relatives. A renunciation is a legal statement renouncing one’s right to administer the estate. A probate attorney can help secure and file these statements with probate court, and then assist the administrator with The Probate Process (managing the estate check-book, determining estate taxes, securing assets, etc.).

Personal Representatives in Testate Estates

A “testate” estate is one that has a valid last will and testament. A will should — and usually does — name the individual the decedent would like to serve as his personal representative or executor. Courts almost invariably honor the decedent’s wishes if the person he named is still alive and is otherwise able to serve. Why wouldn’t the person named as personal representative in the last will and testament legally be allowed to serve? This can happen if he doesn’t meet all the criteria under the state’s law. He might have been convicted of a crime, or he’s suffered some mental decline that would prevent him from meeting his duties. Maybe he’s not yet legally of age. Minors and convicted felons typically can’t serve as personal representatives, nor can banks or trust companies that don’t have fiduciary powers in the state where probate is taking place. Some states have more specific rules. For example, a person can’t serve as a personal representative in Florida unless he is related to the decedent by blood or marriage, or, if he’s not, he is a Utah resident.

When Beneficiaries Object to a Personal Representative

Beneficiaries or heirs can contest a will and object to the personal representative the decedent named in his will. This usually results in a full-blown trial where the beneficiaries and others can present evidence and testimony to convince the judge to overturn the provisions of the will or to honor them. Courts usually prefer to honor the decedent’s wishes whenever possible. When a will is contested over who has been named as personal representative, the judge will make the ultimate decision as to who will serve — the personal representative named in the will or perhaps another party nominated by the beneficiaries, or someone else entirely that the judge selects. These rules and laws can vary from state to state. What holds true in Utah might not be the case in New Hampshire. If you’re planning your will and you’re unsure about the person you want to name, check with a local attorney.

Personal Representatives in Intestate Estates

If the decedent didn’t have a last will and testament, the intestacy laws of the state where he lived at the time of death take over. The court will determine who has priority to serve as personal representative in this case, and the position is often called the “administrator” of the estate. It’s usually the surviving spouse, but if she is unwilling or unable to take on the responsibility, a surviving child or children may be appointed. The judge will work down a list of kin until someone appropriate can be appointed, maybe a surviving parent, sibling, niece or nephew, or someone steps forward to request the job. Typically, if the decedent’s heirs-at-law — those entitled to inherit from him without a will — can agree on who should serve, the probate judge will simply appoint that person. But if the heirs-at-law don’t agree, the probate judge will make the decision based on state rules and statutes

How to probate a will without an attorney

The Probate Process
• Petition the court to be the estate representative: The court will require the petitioner (person asking the court to appoint an official representative) to fill out specific forms. These forms can (with the help of EZ-Probate) be filled out by you. It will be the basic Who, What, When, Where etc. types of questions.
What you will need: A valid will, a copy of a will, or know for sure there is no will.
When would you need an attorney: In this part (filling out the court form) there probably is no need unless you don’t understand what the will is instructing the executor to do.
• Notify heirs and creditors: The court will provide you forms to fill out to notify heirs (listed in a will, or if no will state law dictate who the heirs are). Additionally the representative is also responsible to find out what debts the deceased had and devise a plan to pay those debts. Remember, only assets that pass through probate are liable to pay debts. Learn which assets pass through probate here.
What you will need: a clear understanding of who the heirs are (will or state succession laws), and a reasonable attempt to uncover debts.
When would you need an attorney: If you don’t understand the will or need help determining who the heirs are. Note that all states post the “succession laws” and you can Google them by searching: (state) succession law, or (state) intestate succession.

• Change legal ownership of assets: This may be the most straightforward part. With the court appointment, you will now be able to change assets owned by deceased to the “estate of…”
What you will need: Court appointment and knowledge of what the deceased owned.
When you would need an attorney: There may be assets that have complicated ownership, businesses, royalties, mineral rights etc. If you are unsure how to transfer ownership, then an attorney is needed. For most common assets (bank accounts, investments, property) you will be able to do it yourself.
• Pay Funeral Expenses, Taxes, Debts and Transfer assets to heirs: Note the order that you will need to prioritize payments. The court places priority on payment of funeral, taxes and debts before any payments to heirs.
What you will need: A good accounting of all assets, debts and likely tax liability. The executor is responsible (personally) to ensure that all attempts are made to pay funeral expenses and taxes.
When would you need an attorney: If you don’t have enough money to pay for all of the estate expenses, particularly the taxes.
• Tell the court what you have done and close the estate: This is when you report to the court and show proof that you have done everything needed to close the estate.
What you will need: Good documentation of what you have done and the court will provide you with a template to use to report your actions.
When would you need an attorney: We recommend that at this point everyone should consult with an attorney to review your taken actions. Although not necessary, it is wise to have an expert’s eye on your actions to avoid any costly (personally to you) mistakes.
How to Find the Right Probate Lawyer
• Finding Candidates to Interview: It’s not usually difficult to get the name of a local lawyer or two who handles probates and estates. Probates are generally profitable for lawyers, so they’re happy to take on the work.
• Interviewing the Probate Lawyer: When you first sit down with a lawyer you’re thinking about hiring, make it clear up front that you plan to talk to several lawyers before you hire one for the estate work. Then try to ask some questions before you get into the details of a probate court proceeding. A lawyer who has handled a lot of probates may assume that you’re on board and quickly start asking you for documents and information.

Finding the Attorney Who’s a Good Fit for You

Finding a local attorney who is experienced and competent when it comes to handling a probate court proceeding may not be the hardest part of finding the right lawyer. Most probate cases aren’t complicated; they require careful attention to detail, but you don’t need a courtroom star. Most probates consist almost entirely of routine paperwork. And if you are interviewing lawyers who were personally recommended to you by friends or other local professionals, they’re probably competent. Having a successful working relationship with a lawyer, however, takes more than legal knowledge. So pay attention to how clearly the lawyer explains the process, how well the lawyer listens to your concerns, and how respectful the lawyer is. Make sure you’re signing up with someone who:
• Communicates clearly. Some lawyers just can’t seem to talk in plain English. If you can’t understand what the lawyer is talking about and don’t get good explanations when you ask for clarification, look elsewhere.
• Respects your efforts to educate yourself. If you’re doing your best to learn about your responsibilities as an executor—and possibly do some of the work yourself to save on fees—you want a lawyer who will cooperate respectfully.

Local Probate Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a local probate lawyer in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC
8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C
West Jordan, Utah
84088 United States
Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

What To Do In A Car Accident

Self Defense In Utah

Different Types Of Liability In A Restaurant Or Bar

Does The Utah Anti Deficiency Law Protect Me?

Imputing Income For Divorce In Utah

Business Structure

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/local-probate-lawyer/

Business Structure

A Sole Proprietorship is one of the simplest forms of business organizations one can ever have. It is a business formed, managed and controlled by one person who is the owner. The business and the owner are the same thing. When you form this type of business, you are your own consultant, you are the decision maker and all the losses and profits come to you. They include canteens, restaurants, simple shops and boutiques. For this meaning to stand, the business should not have branches in other areas.

Pros of Sole Proprietorship

The owner enjoys all the profits of the business: since it is owned by a single person, he enjoys all the profits that the business accrues.
• Quick Decision Making: When it comes to making decisions about changing the type or quantity of commodities that the business deals in, you do not have to consult anyone.
• Easy to Manage: As a single business owner, it easy to manage your business since there is no bureaucracy that you have to follow when making decisions.
• Flexibility: This applies in terms of changing the commodities that you sell. You can change them anytime you feel like as long as it is a general sole proprietorship with freedom to sell any product.
• Easy to Start: Yes, this business type does not have very long legal procedures to follow before it gets established.
Cons of Sole Proprietorship
• The owner incurs all the losses: In case of losses, the sole proprietor bares all the burden solely.
• Unlimited liability: This means that in case the business runs bankrupt, the assets of the business owner will be sold to clear off the debts.
• The business owner pays personal income taxes on the business net profits.

General Partnerships

A partnership is a type of business entity owned and operated by two or more individuals. The partners contribute money in order to raise the required capital so as to start the business. All of them are responsible for how the business operates and take part in decision-making. At times, the partners might decide to allocate each of them a different role so as to enhance the efficiency and performance of the entity. If you would like to start a general partnership, have a look at the pros and cons.

Pros

• Easy to Start: Forming a general partnership usually takes a short time since it does not involve long legal procedures.
• Requires less capital: The amount required to start off a partnership is not equal to the amount you need to start a company. The amount of profits are shared according to the ratio of capital contribution of each partner. The higher the capital you contributed, the more the profits you enjoy.
• Consultation: The good thing with partnerships is that before arriving at a final decision, there is always consultation between the partners. This leads to better decisions that improve the business.
• Quick Decision Making: A partnership owned and operated by two people is easy to make decisions that can enhance the performance of the business. You don’t need to call a meeting to discuss arising issues, just a phone call is enough.

Cons

• Unlimited liability: General partnerships means that all the partners have unlimited liability. In case of business debts that the business is unable to pay, the personal assets of the partners are at risk of getting sold in order to clear off the debt.
• Internal Wrangles: Sometimes many partnerships do fail because of internal conflicts or personal interests of a certain partner. The partners have a burden of paying personal income taxes on the net profits of the business.

Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)

A limited type of partnership is whereby all the individuals have limited liability unlike in general partnerships where all partners have unlimited liability. A partnership operates as a limited type only after the partners file an application of registration with the secretary of state. These types of partnerships used to be limited to professional services such as lawyers, accountants or doctors. However, nowadays even common businesses may apply for registration for as long as the partnership has partners that run and operate the business and partners who act as investors. Those running the business have unlimited liability while the investors have limited liability.

Pros of LLP

• A partner is not liable for any wrongful acts of other partners. Each partner carries their own burden and face consequences of wrongdoings individually.
• The formation procedure is not long: When you want to create a limited partnership, it is not tiresome since it only needs approval by the secretary of state.
• Quick Decision Making: A limited partnership has a few partners which makes consultation easier and quicker.
• There is room for consultation: Two heads are better than one that’s what they say. Partners have a room for discussion before making the final decision. This improves the quality of business decisions made. Partners with limited partnership can leave anytime without dissolving the partnership.
Cons
• They are more expensive to form than general partnerships.
• Affected by personal interests: Most of the times what leads to dissolving partnerships is disagreements between individual partners.
• Partners with unlimited liability (those in managerial positions) suffer whenever the business is unable to pay off its debts.

Corporation

This is a business entity owned by a list of shareholders. The shareholders have the mandate to elect a board of directors whose work is to oversee the day to day running of the corporation. When it comes to decision making, it is the responsibility of the directors to make sure that any decision made benefits the corporation and is in support of the corporation’s objectives. Also, the directors have the power to hire and fire employees. The employees of the corporation have the obligation to make sure that the targets of the business are met within certain duration of time. A corporation operates as a separate legal entity from the owners. This means that the owners have limited liability. As a separate legal entity, it means it can buy real estate, sue and even get sued by creditors. An established corp. can raise capital via sale of stock in the stock market. Its ownership can also be transferred from one party to another. It also has perpetual existence meaning that it can continue operating even if the ownership changes. When you want to start a corporation, most probably you will be the major shareholder with authority to appoint directors. The directors will then go ahead to hire employees that will be responsible for the running of the company. A corporation operates under what is termed as corporation by-laws. This is a set of document that provides guidelines on how the corporation should operate. These by-laws can be modified as the company grows. Every year, the corporation should hold an annual meeting to discuss how the entity has performed.

Pros of Corporations

• One of the most attractive things about a corporation is that the owners have limited liability. This means that in case of debts, the assets of the owners are very safe and remains untouched by the creditors.
• There is a possibility to lower taxes especially when the owner and the business share profits.
• At certain times, benefits may be deducted as business expenses.
• The ownership of a corporation is easily transferable. This means that in an event whereby the current shareholders and directors foresee a dark future, they might sell the corporation and hence avoid losing their capital investment.
Cons
• It is very expensive compared to setting up simple business setups such as sole proprietorship and partnerships.
• Starting a corporation involves a lot of paperwork. When it comes to legal paperwork, the owner must file it with the secretary of state.
• A corporation operates as a separate legal entity and hence is entitled to pay taxes.
• There is slow decision making in corporations since the directors have to be consulted before any verdict is reached.

S Corporation Information

The difference between an S corp and a c corp is based on the taxation process. When it comes to an s corp, there is only one level of taxation. The income generated by the corporation is distributed among the shareholders for taxation purposes. However, with corps, there is double taxation. The corporate pays corporate tax on its own as a corporate while the dividends generated by the company and passed down to shareholders are also taxed in terms of personal income tax.

Pros of an S Corporation

Before you take a step and register your business as an s corporation, you should beware of both the merits and demerits it comes with. The merits include:
• Single layer of taxation: The shareholders of s corporation escape double taxation since the taxes are only payable at the shareholder’s level and not at the corporate level. While the business’ income continues to be taxable, the shareholders do not carry any extra burden when it comes to tax liability.
• Step up in Basis: Depending on the amount retained each year by the corporation as income, the shareholders receive a step up on the basis on their stock. This reduces tax liability on the shareholders especially when the shares are ever sold.

Cons of an S Corporation

• Cash flow vs. tax liability: Whether the shareholders get their share of dividends or not, they are expected to pay their pro rata share of taxes on the company’s earnings. This means that a corporation needs to have proper management of cash flow to avoid any inconveniences in this area.
• Built-in Gains: When an asset of an s corporation is sold within 10 year period of s corporation election, then the gain based on the value of the conversion date is taxable to the company. This means that for a corporation which is growing, it is advisable to convert sooner than later in order to minimize the amount gains within a 10 year period.

Limited Liability Company (LLC)

This is a hybrid of both a corporation and a partnership. A limited liability company operates as a separate legal entity and hence has exclusive rights to buy and own assets, sue or be sued. It has a pass through taxation feature just like a corporation. This means that the members (shareholders) only suffer from a single taxation just like in a partnership. Unlike a corporation, it has no stock and does involve fewer formalities during the formation process. The owners of an LLC are called members and not shareholders like in a corporation. This has made many people refer to it as a corporation with fewer complications. This type of company operates under a set guideline of rules referred to as ‘operating agreement’. These set of rules can be modified depending on how the business performs over certain time duration. Operating a limited liability company is less complex since it only requires the members to meet once or twice a year to make or implement certain decisions.

Pros of LLC

• Single Taxation. An LLC does not pay taxes at the company level. The taxes charged are ones that are passed through to the members who later pay personal income tax.
• Liability protection for members: The members of an LLC have limited liability meaning that their assets cannot be taken away to cater for business debts.
• They are easier to establish compared to corporations since little paperwork is involved.
Cons of LLC
• They require more capital in order to establish compared to sole proprietorships or partnerships.
• They require more paperwork and legal procedure.
Thus, establishing a business entity structure requires an entrepreneur to consider these things, the amount of capital, the type of liability and how easy it is for them to be formed.

Factors to consider before choosing a business structure

For new businesses that could fall into two or more of these categories, it’s not always easy to decide which structure to choose. You need to consider your start-up’s financial needs, risk and ability to grow. It can be difficult to switch your legal structure after you’ve registered your business, so give it careful analysis in the early stages of forming your business.
• Flexibility: Where is your company headed, and which type of legal structure allows for the growth you envision? Turn to your business plan to review your goals, and see which structure best aligns with those objectives. Your entity should support the possibility for growth and change, not hold it back from its potential.

• Complexity: When it comes to start-up and operational complexity, nothing is more simple than a sole proprietorship. You simply register your name, start doing business, report the profits, and pay taxes on it as personal income. However, it can be difficult to procure outside funding. Partnerships, on the other hand, require a signed agreement to define the roles and percentages of profits. Corporations and LLCs have various reporting requirements with state governments and the federal government.
• Liability: A corporation carries the least amount of personal liability since the law holds that it is its own entity. This means that creditors and customers can sue the corporation, but they cannot gain access to any personal assets of the officers or shareholders. An LLC offers the same protection, but with the tax benefits of a sole proprietorship. Partnerships share the liability between the partners as defined by their partnership agreement.
• Taxes: An owner of an LLC pays taxes just as a sole proprietor does: All profit is considered personal income and taxed accordingly at the end of the year.
“As a small business owner, you want to avoid double taxation in the early stages,” “The LLC structure prevents that and makes sure you’re not taxed as a company but as an individual.” Individuals in a partnership also claim their share of the profits as personal income. Your accountant may suggest quarterly or biannual advance payments to minimize the end effect on your return.

Business Lawyer For Business Structures In Utah

When you need legal help with business structure in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC
8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C
West Jordan, Utah
84088 United States
Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Divorce Utah County

180 Day Waiting Period To Refile Bankruptcy After A Dismissal

Estate Planning For Blended Families

Lien Stripping In Chapter 13 Bankruptcy

What To Do In A Car Accident

Self Defense In Utah

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/business-structure/

Self Defense In Utah

Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This definition is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations.

For instance, what is a sufficient level of force or violence when defending oneself? What goes beyond that level? What if the intended victim provoked the attack? Do victims have to retreat from the violence if possible? What happens when victims reasonably perceive a threat even if the threat doesn’t actually exist? What about when the victim’s apprehension is subjectively genuine, but objectively unreasonable? Force can only be used to stop an imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person’s imminent use of unlawful force. Deadly force is only justified to stop death, seriously bodily injury, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person’s imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

No Duty to Retreat (Stand Your Ground)

A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained.

Is the Threat Imminent?

As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense. Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.

Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?

Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force. To illustrate, picture two strangers walking past each other in a city park. Unbeknownst to one, there is a bee buzzing around his head. The other person sees this and, trying to be friendly, reaches quickly towards the other to try and swat the bee away. The person with the bee by his head sees a stranger’s hand dart towards his face and violently hits the other person’s hand away. While this would normally amount to an assault, a court could easily find that the sudden movement of a stranger’s hand towards a person’s face would cause a reasonable man to conclude that he was in danger of immediate physical harm, which would render the use of force a justifiable exercise of the right of self-defense. All this in spite of the fact that the perceived assailant meant no harm; in fact, he was actually trying to help!

Imperfect Self-defense

Sometimes a person may have a genuine fear of imminent physical harm that is objectively unreasonable. If the person uses force to defend themselves from the perceived threat, the situation is known as “imperfect self-defense.” Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime of using violence, but it can lessen the charges and penalties involved. Not every state recognizes imperfect self-defense, however. For example, a person is waiting for a friend at a coffee shop. When the friend arrives, he walks toward the other person with his hand held out for a handshake. The person who had been waiting genuinely fears that his friend means to attack him, even though this fear is totally unreasonable. In order to avoid the perceived threat, the person punches his friend in the face. While the person’s claim of self-defense will not get him out of any criminal charges because of the unreasonable nature of his perception, it could reduce the severity of the charges or the eventual punishment.

“Reasonableness” as a Factor in Utah Self Defense Criminal Cases According to Utah criminal law, you may be justified in either threatening or actually using force against another to the extent that you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to defend against the use of unlawful force by another person. This requirement of reasonableness in the use of force means that the level of force you may use can depend on the specific circumstances of your case. The specific threat you are facing can be a major factor in determining whether your use of force will be considered reasonable. A person facing an assailant who is threatening the use of a gun would likely be entitled to use more and different kinds of force than would be a person who faced an assailant who was unarmed. Similar legal principles apply both to cases of self-defense as well as using force to defend a third person.

Restrictions on the Use of Force in Self Defense in Utah

While Utah’s self-defense laws are fairly broad, there are restrictions on a person’s ability to use self-defense or defense of another as a defense in a criminal case. You may not use force in defending yourself if you are “attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony.” You may not use force to defend yourself if you initially and intentionally provoked the other person use of force with the intent to use that force as an excuse to “inflict bodily harm upon the assailant.” You also may not use force in defending yourself if you were the initial aggressor or were engaged in mutual “combat by agreement,” unless you have withdrawn from the fight and effectively communicated that fact to the other person.

Use of Deadly Force as a Defense in Utah Criminal Cases

Utah law allows you to use deadly force (“force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily inure”) only under circumstances where you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another, or to “prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Use of Force in Defense of Home or Other Property in Utah

A person may also be entitled to use force in defending their home or other property. But the criminal law relating to the use of force in defense of a home or force in defense of property are different. Utah criminal law places significant restrictions on both the level of force that can be used and under what circumstances that force can be used.

Utah’s Self-Defense Statute

Utah’s self-defense law is found in the Utah Criminal Code at section 76-2-402. Under this code, a person can use force when he or she reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent harm. The danger presented must be imminent in nature and serious enough to cause injury or death. Force is also justified to prevent a forcible felony. This class of felonies includes violent crimes such as carjacking, battery or kidnapping.

Utah’s Castle Doctrine

The castle doctrine is a common law doctrine stating that persons have no duty to retreat in their home, or “castle”, and may use reasonable force, including deadly force, to defend their property, person, or another. Outside of the abode, however, a person has a duty to retreat, if possible, before using deadly force. Under this doctrine, one may use force to prevent unlawful entries into a residence. Deadly force can be used if the other party acts in a violent manner. In such a case, there is a presumption that the defendant (homeowner) acted reasonably in using force to defend his or her home. At common law, self-defense claims are not valid if the defendant could have safely retreated from danger (duty to retreat). The castle doctrine is an exception to this. It gives immunity from liability to individuals who acted in self-defense in the home even if they could have safely retreated from the threat and failed to do so. The duty to retreat is a legal requirement in some jurisdictions that a threatened person cannot stand one’s ground and apply lethal force in self-defense, but must retreat to a place of safety instead. Deadly force or lethal force is force with the intent of serious bodily injury or death to another person. In most jurisdictions it is only accepted under conditions of extreme necessity and last resort.

Self-Defense Laws in Utah

• A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person’s imminent use of unlawful force.

• A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person’s imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

•  A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection if the person: initially provokes the use of force against the person with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony;  or was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and, notwithstanding, the other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

• For purposes of Subsection (2)(a)(iii) the following do not, by themselves, constitute “combat by agreement”: voluntarily entering into or remaining in an ongoing relationship; or entering or remaining in a place where one has a legal right to be.

• A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained (expect if you fall into the exception).

•  For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Person, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6, Offenses Against Property.

•  Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony.

• Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204 , does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.

• In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
(a) the nature of the danger;
(b) the immediacy of the danger;
(c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;
(d) the other’s prior violent acts or violent propensities;  and
(e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties’ relationship.

Can you use Self-Defense in Utah?

Many high-profile self-defense cases have graced the headlines over the past few years. Self-defense laws have become been a central issue in the national discussion about gun rights. The states are split when it comes to how self-defense is regulated. Some states limit use of the doctrine, while others give citizens the full right to protect themselves. If you have considered using self-defense in an emergency situation, make sure you are familiar with the laws of your state. Utahans should fully understand their state’s take on this issue in the case that they have to act in their own defense.

Self Defense Attorney Free Consultation

When you need legal help with self defense in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC
8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C
West Jordan, Utah
84088 United States
Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Changes In Utah Foreclosure Law

Divorce Utah County

Lessons Learned From 50 Cents Bankruptcy

Child Support Enforcement In Utah

How Adultery And Infidelity Relates To Divorce In Utah

What To Do In A Car Accident

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/self-defense-in-utah/

What To Do In A Car Accident?

Anyone who has had a car accident with another driver will know the crunch of metal and tinkling of glass hitting the road is only the start of it. There are many things you should and should not do if you have a car accident.

PREPARE

Firstly, have a first aid kit, fire extinguisher and a safety triangle handy. These will be helpful items if you are involved in an accident or witness one. A car accident can ruin your day people may be injured, and serious damage to your vehicle and that of others, can occur in seconds. You may also have to deal with liability issues which can carry huge costs. Ensure your vehicle is insured. If you do have an accident, you should be covered for any damages that may be caused.

STAY CALM

If you are involved in an accident, try to stay calm. Panic can cause others to become hysterical or alarmed, which will make the situation worse. Take a deep breath and think about what you need to do.

CHECK FOR INJURIES

Check for any injuries to the people in your vehicle. If everyone is okay and you are able to, check that the occupants of the other vehicle are uninjured. There may be some basic first aid treatment that you can attend to otherwise, if the injuries are more serious, you will need to seek medical help.

MAKE YOURSELF SAFE

If it is safe to do so, switch on your hazard lights and get out of your vehicle. Otherwise, move your vehicle to a safe spot that is not blocking traffic. Set up safety triangles to warn other motorists that there has been an accident and to slow down. If you can’t get out of your car, or it is not safe to, stay seat belted in, call 911 and wait for help to arrive.

CALL THE POLICE

Even if the accident you have been involved in is minor, the police should still be notified that there has been an incident. Call 911 and this way the police can file an accident report for the records, and any required fire or ambulance teams can be sent to the scene.

IDENTIFY WITNESSES

See if there are any witnesses to the crash. If anyone else saw what happened, ask them to stay on the scene so that they can provide statements about their view of the accident.

LOOK FOR DETAILS

Look for the other driver’s license plate number and make and model of vehicle that they are driving. Exchange personal information, such as name, address, phone numbers, insurance company and policy number, with all drivers involved in the incident. If the driver doesn’t own the vehicle, be sure to get the owner’s details as well. This information will be very helpful for insurance purposes after the initial shock of the accident. If the other driver is aggressive and uncooperative, record any information you can about the vehicle (eg number plate, make and model) and report the incident to police.

TAKE NOTES

If the accident is a minor one, note down anything you remember. Describe what happened with notes and images of how the accident occurred. You could even take pictures of the scene including any damage to vehicles, the roads, traffic signs and the direction the cars were travelling in. This information will help authorities to decide who was at fault.

TALK TO YOUR INSURANCE PROVIDER

If you need to, file a claim with your insurance company. If the accident was minor and your car does not need extensive repairs, it may cost less to pay for the repairs, rather than take out an insurance claim. You should still notify the insurance company of the incident, regardless of the damage caused.

THINGS TO DO AFTER A CAR ACCIDENT

Car accidents can wreak havoc on lives. Not only can car accidents cause serious bodily injury and sometimes permanent disability, but they can also cause a lot of financial problems through property damage, lost wages, etc. They also cause stress, anxiety, and duress. Many people think that if someone else hits them, they’ll be fine–the other person’s insurance will take care of everything. This isn’t always true.

• Check for injuries and make sure everyone is okay. Call an ambulance if needed.

• Stay at the scene. You can be charged with a crime if you leave the scene, especially is someone is injured.

• Call the police, even if it is a minor accident. Having a police report is helpful to determine liability.

• Tell The Truth and Don’t Apologize: Everything you say is probably going to be written down in a police report. If it wasn’t your fault then don’t say it was and don’t apologize. Just give an accurate and detailed witness statement. It will likely be used later to help determine liability.

• Take pictures: If possible to do safely, take pictures of the accident before cars are moved. However, it is important to stay safe and move the vehicles to the side of the road. If you weren’t able before, take pictures once the cars are moved.

• Exchange Information: It is important to know who all was involved. Don’t rely on the police to preserve the information. They are usually pretty good but mistakes do happen. Write down the license plates of all parties involved, including witnesses, full name and contact information, Insurance company and policy number, Driver’s license and license plate number, Type, color and model of vehicle

• Location of accident: The III recommends that you avoid discussing fault when going over the facts with the other driver: When you file an insurance claim, the adjuster reviewing your claim will determine who’s at fault based on an inspection of the vehicles/property damaged, information provided by you and the other parties involved in the accident, and any supporting documentation, like the police report or photographs from the scene.

• Seek Medical Attention: it won’t cost you anything initially: All insurance policies have PIP, which covers a minimum of $3000 of medical care after an accident. Many people don’t seek care because they are worried about paying for it. For purposes of the case, it is important to document your injuries as well. Seek medical care from a certified injury professional. Not all doctors are the same and know what to do after an accident. We can refer you to our recommended professionals if you like.

• Contact Your Insurance Company: Report the claim to your insurance company at your earliest convenience. Many people think if they were not at fault they don’t need to file a claim. That is not true; you do need to file a claim. Utah Law states that your premiums will not go up if you file a claim for which you are not at fault.

• Seek Legal Advice: Almost all personal injury attorneys offer free consultations. Seek advice early on. We can steer you away from common pitfalls and tell you if you do or do not have a case. Find a qualified attorney who focuses on personal injury, not your neighbor or church member. Personal Injury Law is just as specialized and complicated as any other area of law. Insurance companies will try to convince you not to seek an attorney…because they don’t want you to have one. Protect your own rights.

• Do Not Sign Things Without Reading Them. Many times insurance companies try to get you to sign things that are prejudicial to you. For example, sometimes they slip in a full release of your bodily injury claims in the property damage papers. Make sure you are reading everything or hire an attorney before you have to sign anything.

• Keep a Journal and Accurate Records: Lots of things will happen all at once and you think you’ll remember everything later, but over time you will start to forget things. Keep accurate records and notes in case you need to recall details later.

Making a claim to your insurance provider

Phone your insurance company as soon as possible ideally at the time of the accident. They’ll ask for:
• Your policy number or information to identify you, such as your post code and car registration number.
• The registration number of the cars involved.
• The driver’s name, address and phone number.
• The driver’s insurance details if you have them.
Still tell your insurer about the accident, because the other driver may try to make a claim without you knowing. You may choose not to claim:
• To keep your no claims discount intact, if you don’t have a ‘protected no claims discount’.
• If you decide to pay for the repairs yourself.

Crash-for-cash claimants

These are people who arrange accidents in order to make a fraudulent insurance claim. They may do this by braking unexpectedly, causing you to go into the back of their car, or by flashing their lights to indicate you’re free to go before purposely crashing into you. They may also take out their brake light bulbs, giving you no warning when they hit the brakes in front of you, and making it more likely you will crash into them. Crash-for-cash claimants will usually blame you for the accident and give you their insurance information, which is sometimes written out ready on a bit of paper. A few weeks after this happens, you might receive a letter from your insurance company highlighting the damage from the accident the claims they make can be exaggerated (sometimes including recovery vehicle, car hire, or whiplash injuries to others that haven’t occurred) to maximize the money they try to win back.

You’ll be less likely to be involved in such a scam if you keep your eyes open and:
• Be especially careful in stop to start traffic, at merging junctions and roundabouts.
• Leave plenty of space between you and the car in front.
• Be wary of erratic driving behavior such as slowing for no reason.
• Take note if their brake lights don’t seem to be working and increase your distance.
Some drivers install dash-cams to show their innocence against a crash-for-cash claim. These can be very helpful in establishing proof of a crash-for-cash claim.

Safety technology

Car safety technology may help to reduce the risk of having a car accident leaving you feeling safer while you drive. Cars fitted with certain types of safety technology will usually have a lower insurance group than a similar car not so equipped, which can attract a lower premium. Many cars already come with audible and visual sensors when maneuvering your car in tight spaces or automatic parallel parking. You can check with your insurance company to see if they’ll offer additional discount for such equipment. These are the few safety tech features:

• Autonomous emergency braking (AEB): the brakes are automatically applied if sensors on the car detect that you’re going to have a crash, helping to either stop or decrease the severity of the accident.

• Adaptive cruise control: the car automatically reduces its set speed if the traffic ahead is travelling more slowly than you.

• Dashboard cameras: these record the traffic ahead of (and, optionally, behind) you, which can help prevent crash-for-cash claimants from making fraudulent insurance claims or provide evidence of what happened when you have to make a claim.

• Lane departure warning system: sensors or cameras pick up your cars position on the road and warn you if you’re swaying out of your lane.

Accidents are sometimes hard to avoid regardless of how carefully you drive. Keeping a checklist with post-accident steps in the car can help you make sure you’re covered when contacting your car insurer.

Car Accident Attorney Free Consultation

If you’ve been injured in a car accident in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Ascent Law LLC
8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C
West Jordan, Utah
84088 United States
Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

ATV Accident Lawyer Draper Utah

Beneficiary Of A Will

Should Filing Bankruptcy Be The Last Resort?

Going Public With Your Startup In Utah

Changes In Utah Foreclosure Law

Divorce Utah County

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/what-to-do-in-a-car-accident/