New Mexico drops and then re-adds FL and others from CCW Reciprocity

[wyntrout]

What gives with New Mexico?? They've dropped Florida and many others from the CCW Reciprocity List for some reason. I've noticed a lot of talk by guys from other states wondering what's up.

If I ever get to drive out to Colorado again, that's one state I have to travel through... mostly mountains and boonies north of Santa Fe.

Wynn

[chrish]

I suspect as the castle doctrine continues to be the poster child of us evil gun toting freaks, companies and governments will continue to distance themselves from it. Gun rights will never get better, only worse. It's just not in the cards. Kraft, Coke, and Pepsi have now all pulled the plug on ALEC for crafting the castle doctrine laws across the country...all without any true justification. It really won't matter how FL turns out, the damage has been done to the 2A thanks to the media.

[TucsonMTB]

What gives with New Mexico?? They've dropped Florida and many others from the CCW Reciprocity List for some reason. I've noticed a lot of talk by guys from other states wondering what's up.

If I ever get to drive out to Colorado again, that's one state I have to travel through... mostly mountains and boonies north of Santa Fe.

Wynn

It has nothing to do with recent events in Florida. New Mexico has been reviewing the training requirements imposed by other states who issue permits for several months. Many, including Arizona, were informed earlier this year that the process was underway and that initial indications were there would be some changes. When Arizona pretty much ignored the notice (we have almost NO training requirements) the reciprocal agreement with Arizona was ended.

I'm sure the New Mexico folks believe they are doing the right thing. Whatever . . .

[jg rider]

Not to long ago Nevada also dropped it's reciprocity with Utah and some other states, because Nevada requires proof of firearms proficiency, where as all that is necessary in Utah is to sit in a class and listen to some instructor tell you the dos and don'ts, the laws and "this is a revolver , this is an auto, this is how you load and unload a revolver, and this is how you load and unload an auto".
That's also how it's done in our home state of OR. and that's how it was done when we got our non resident Utah licenses.
In OR. people have to attend a class and listen to the B.S. unless they had a prior CHL, produce match scores from competition, or were in the military, LEO, etc.
The non resident Utah license required us to attend a class to learn the laws of Utah.

IMHO I applaud states that require proof of knowledge and proficiency with a hand gun. Nation wide reciprocity without some kind of qualification scares me

[lowroad]

Yep, it's a requirement/training issue. We have to sit mandatory for 16 hours and actually shoot to qualify to obtain a CCW here. Many folks here just get a utah permit as well.

[Longitude Zero]

IMHO I applaud states that require proof of knowledge and proficiency with a hand gun. Nation wide reciprocity without some kind of qualification scares me

I agree. All you have to do is see the kooks/nutjobs/dolts walking around at a lot of gun shows to see why I feel that way. You know the type, all cammoed up and carrying more weapons than Carters got pills.

[QuercusMax]

While I don't like the idea of the Federal government sticking its nose into this area, it's also really annoying that each state does things differently, has different rules, etc. I hate it when you can be driving along being perfectly legal one moment and one mile down the road you are breaking someone else's law.

Seems like some generally-uniform guidelines would be useful. We have national standards in a number of areas, so why not firearms? Although there are many other counter-examples, such as in when cell phones can be used while driving, motorcycle helmets required or not, etc, so maybe it's hopeless.

The Utah carry permit is quite popular and training for it was offered as part of the carry training I did a while back in Minnesota, but as others have mentioned it is all about Utah laws and has no requirement for demonstrating proficiency, thus seemed pretty lame to me.

I'm all about freedom, but I think that anyone who carries a gun should have at least minimally demonstrated proficiency in its use, just like you have to do to drive a car.

[Bawanna]

I disagree with the mandatory training myself. I think a person that feels they need it should seek it, have the maturity to seek the training.
I work with and know numerous people who have attended lots of very high speed low drag training and THEY scare me too. Almost an overconfidence issue. And funny thing is many of them won't touch a 1911??????? Not enough cushion for safety perhaps.

I've not met a "Certified Instructor" yet that was anything but a know it all on a higher plain than the mere mortals required to sit in their class.

The dude that taught my sons Hunter Safety course was a piece of work, we had word numerous times.

I have high hopes of TD2K becoming a pleasant and informative instructor but I'll probably have to get an operation before I can attend one of her classes.

Hopefully if they ever require mandatory (I do hate that word) they'll grandfather in the guys that have been shooting for more than a few years, of course they'll want proof of that and I'm not sure how they'll work that.
I'll probably just have to become illegal, lot of that going around too.

[lowroad]

Well, I'll grant you it doesn't make a whole bunch of sense since you only have to demonstrate that you can shoot the thing when applying to carry concealed. Any yahoo with $400 can walk into sportman's warehouse,buy a pistol, and is fully within his legal right to strap it on and carry it openly throughout the state. No permit of any sort required.

[wyntrout]

The "Grandfathering" scheme is used to get otherwise terrible and hard to pass legislation passed... lessening objections... in other words, giving up other's future rights... then, at some point in the future, the legislatures can change the law to include this smaller class of "haves" because now there are a lot of "have-nots" who think the others should be likewise encumbered or hampered as they are... kind of the "nose of the camel under the tent" before the whole camel is in there with you.

It would be nice if all children were taught gun safety to preclude or lessen the chance of inquiring young minds finding out about guns the hard way. But NO, no gun safety training, but they can have training in sexual intercourse and condom use... or learn about "diversity", Heather's two moms, leftist/progressive indoctrination, history revision... and SELF ESTEEM... where the world revolves around them!

It's nice that the federal government is NOT in charge of CWP licensing... none of us would have licenses... and we would be nice little sheeple subjects for the the-oh-so-smart, but unelected bureaucrats and "elite" politicians to RULE us.

States' rights took a big hit when the "people" were allowed to vote for their state Senators, as well as the Representatives in a Progressive Party supported 17th Amendment. There was a reason that our forefathers set up the government representation that way. Now the PEOPLE, most of whom seem oblivious to anything other than what's in it for them, choose all of the Congressmen and the STATES have no one to represent them. That and the extreme misuse of the Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution have made the States nearly powerless and the Feds can withhold money from the States to get compliance with just about anything the Federal government wants... as they did with highway funds to get compliance with the national speed limit of 55MPH.

Wynn

[TucsonMTB]

Well, I'll grant you it doesn't make a whole bunch of sense since you only have to demonstrate that you can shoot the thing when applying to carry concealed. Any yahoo with $400 can walk into sportman's warehouse,buy a pistol, and is fully within his legal right to strap it on and carry it openly throughout the state. No permit of any sort required.

Uhm, yeah. I think it has something to do with The Constitution. Maybe amendment number two?!

It's a good thing . . . trust me.

[Tinman507]

The biggest problem with mandatory training is, it sets you on the edge of a slippery slope. Once a traning mandate is in place, it's very easy to keep raising the bar higher, changing the requirements. It can even be made to make it impossible to get training, depending on the newly imposed requirements.

All you have to do is look at Washington DC's hoops you gotta jump through just to be able to own a gun.

[TucsonMTB]

It's nice that the federal government is NOT in charge of CWP licensing... none of us would have licenses... and we would be nice little sheeple subjects for the the-oh-so-smart, but unelected bureaucrats and "elite" politicians to RULE us.

Amen, brother!

[OldLincoln]

I'm not a fan of mandatory anything, but after reading about some of the knotheads that visit our local ranges, I'm thinking it may be a good idea to at least test knowledge of basic laws and gun safety. Does any state issue drivers licenses without even a simple proficiency check?

I said before, my concern for national carry license is they would revert to the highest state's requirements, including max rounds, strict concealment, etc. But what's a state to do that has restrictions for it's citizens, allow a visitor to disregard them? I cannot even buy a PM45 in CA because it's not on the list.

[DKD]

I am a stricy Constitutionalist. As I see it the second ammendment is just as it is stated as far as the right of all citizens to keep & bear arms. Just like your car and that is a privledge and is not to be construed as a right.... we should be responsable for our actions and with it comes the responsability that goes with it to use that tool wisely. So I am against mandatory anything as we have all seen what history has taught us about that. We as a people need to seek out the training if we intend to take on this responsabilty as was intened by our founding fathers.