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

[jg rider]

So some people don't want government involved in their lives. Correct me if I'm wrong that it's the congress (Government) that passed the resolution for national reciprocity. And it now has to go before the senate (government) for approval.

And some states are balking because they think it goes against the 10th amendment. And others don't want guns in their states. So why don't we tell the government to butt out. And let the states fight it out.

Or do we want our cake and eat it at the same time?

The government doesn't have any say on how gun laws are written in the states. AFAIK the "shall issue" wording doesn't apply to all states/counties

[chrish]

So some people don't want government involved in their lives. Correct me if I'm wrong that it's the congress (Government) that passed the resolution for national reciprocity. And it now has to go before the senate (government) for approval.

And some states are balking because they think it goes against the 10th amendment. And others don't want guns in their states. So why don't we tell the government to butt out. And let the states fight it out.

Or do we want our cake and eat it at the same time?

The government doesn't have any say on how gun laws are written in the states. AFAIK the "shall issue" wording doesn't apply to all states/counties

yes and no on the cake question...

the states are responsible for all things not defined in the Constitution...but the 2A is an enumerated right. which we now go back to the ONLY reason that I (personally) consider the BoR useful vs the Federalist position that we didn't need them b/c the Constitution (proper) dealt w/ it by NOT mentioning it. the states do NOT have the ability (strict Constitutional) to legislate or restrict things enumerated in the Constitution. So, the need for national reciprocity is not necessary (to the letter of the law of the Constitution). But because of where things have gone, some see if as necessary.

If we really adhered to the Constitution, none of those laws that pushed Congress to pass the reciprocity resolution would have existed in the first place, thus, no need for the reciprocity crap.

Slippery slope...it's not just a theory, this proves it.

But, I'm no Constitutional scholar

[QuercusMax]

I remember well the day I attended the training & proficiency test required to get my first CCW permit back in Minnesota.

The instructor brought in a variety of handguns to demonstrate them to the class, and to let people handle them. Of the dozen people in the class, some had a lot of experience and some obviously had almost none.

During a break, one of the "mature" attendees picked up one of the guns and starting pointing it around the room. Yikes!!!! Clueless. Yet here was a guy who was planning to get a carry permit.

I am much more afraid of idiots than I am of BGs or the US government (of which I am also afraid, just much less so).

Training doesn't prevent stupidity - nothing can - but some basic training can at least reduce the chance that people who are allowed to carry deadly weapons in public are ignorant of proper procedures and the law.

I really enjoyed that CCW course I took because I learned a lot. And everyone passed the proficiency test, although the idiot barely did.

[jg rider]

I remember well the day I attended the training & proficiency test required to get my first CCW permit back in Minnesota.

The instructor brought in a variety of handguns to demonstrate them to the class, and to let people handle them. Of the dozen people in the class, some had a lot of experience and some obviously had almost none.

During a break, one of the "mature" attendees picked up one of the guns and starting pointing it around the room. Yikes!!!! Clueless. Yet here was a guy who was planning to get a carry permit.

I am much more afraid of idiots than I am of BGs or the US government (of which I am also afraid, just much less so).

Training doesn't prevent stupidity - nothing can - but some basic training can at least reduce the chance that people who are allowed to carry deadly weapons in public are ignorant of proper procedures and the law.

I really enjoyed that CCW course I took because I learned a lot. And everyone passed the proficiency test, although the idiot barely did.

You had a test? Not here or Utah
Just spoke with my brother in law who lives in Nevada. He told me aside from the instructors showing off, the state law requires a dos and don'ts safety course, and applicants must show familiarity with the handgun they're going to carry. And they must have a passing score on a target about 20' away to be certified. Their permit says which gun they certified with. If they want to carry something else they need to recertify with the other gun. They can have a max. of two on their permit.

Wife and I have had CHL for over 30 yrs. We got them back when the law read "the sheriff may issue" We were special cases. Back then the licenses stated what you were going to carry. I remember when we had to interview with the sheriff. First he called me into his office while my wife waited in the outer office. He already knew that we could shoot from our resumes and he knew I did custom work. He asked me if we were carrying what we wanted permits for. When I said yes, he asked if he could see it. I was carrying a cocked and locked 1911. So I faced away from him drew the pistol, dropped the mag, jacked out the chambered round, locked the slide back and handed it to him, butt first. He made some remark about nice workmanship. He handed it back, I reloaded and he walked me to the door.
Next he called my wife in. After a while they came out. He walked to his secretary's desk signed some papers and said "you both passed" From there we were finger printed and had our pictures taken and waited for the background check to be done. I found out later that he also asked to see her carry piece. So she showed him her 2 1/2" Smith .44 mag. Just kidding, back then she was carrying a .38 S&W mod.60

Since the laws changed to "the sheriff shall issue" I've personally seen
A guy shoot himself in the foot because he was holstering a unfamiliar 1911 with the thumb safety off and his finger in the trigger guard
I had a lady with a new CHL innocently/ jokenly point her loaded revolver at me. When I told her it was a no no especially when she had her finger on the trigger, she replied that she was told it was O.K. with a revolver
I was present after a cool guy shot himself in the ass and calf. He decided to Mexican carry a Glock in the waist band of a pair of dress pants that had buttons on the inside for suspenders. Guess what Happened?
I know of a guy that shot himself in the calf with a .45 as he was sitting on his living room floor jacking rounds out of his gun by working the slide.

These are people, if I know, I don't want around me

[tv_racin_fan]

So some people don't want government involved in their lives. Correct me if I'm wrong that it's the congress (Government) that passed the resolution for national reciprocity. And it now has to go before the senate (government) for approval.

And some states are balking because they think it goes against the 10th amendment. And others don't want guns in their states. So why don't we tell the government to butt out. And let the states fight it out.

Or do we want our cake and eat it at the same time?

The government doesn't have any say on how gun laws are written in the states. AFAIK the "shall issue" wording doesn't apply to all states/counties

Actually the GOVT (more correctly the FEDERAL GOVT) does have a say. See the CONSTITUTION applies to everyone and every portion of the GOVT in the US. Federal and State and according to that Constitution the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed. To me that means that both the Federal Govt and the individual State govt(s) and the local township govts have not the right to pass any law which restricts on my ability to keep and bear. It is the duty of at least one part of the Federal Govt to ensure that the US Constitution is upheld by the laws passed by even the smallest of township govts. It is the duty of the people to ensure that all govts within the US are upholding the US Constitution and any govt they feel is not doing so should be brought to the attention of both the people and that portion of the Federal Govt that is charged with that duty.

[JFootin]

You had a test? Not here or Utah
Just spoke with my brother in law who lives in Nevada. He told me aside from the instructors showing off, the state law requires a dos and don'ts safety course, and applicants must show familiarity with the handgun they're going to carry. And they must have a passing score on a target about 20' away to be certified. Their permit says which gun they certified with. If they want to carry something else they need to recertify with the other gun. They can have a max. of two on their permit.

Wife and I have had CHL for over 30 yrs. We got them back when the law read "the sheriff may issue" We were special cases. Back then the licenses stated what you were going to carry. I remember when we had to interview with the sheriff. First he called me into his office while my wife waited in the outer office. He already knew that we could shoot from our resumes and he knew I did custom work. He asked me if we were carrying what we wanted permits for. When I said yes, he asked if he could see it. I was carrying a cocked and locked 1911. So I faced away from him drew the pistol, dropped the mag, jacked out the chambered round, locked the slide back and handed it to him, butt first. He made some remark about nice workmanship. He handed it back, I reloaded and he walked me to the door.
Next he called my wife in. After a while they came out. He walked to his secretary's desk signed some papers and said "you both passed" From there we were finger printed and had our pictures taken and waited for the background check to be done. I found out later that he also asked to see her carry piece. So she showed him her 2 1/2" Smith .44 mag. Just kidding, back then she was carrying a .38 S&W mod.60

Since the laws changed to "the sheriff shall issue" I've personally seen
A guy shoot himself in the foot because he was holstering a unfamiliar 1911 with the thumb safety off and his finger in the trigger guard
I had a lady with a new CHL innocently/ jokenly point her loaded revolver at me. When I told her it was a no no especially when she had her finger on the trigger, she replied that she was told it was O.K. with a revolver
I was present after a cool guy shot himself in the ass and calf. He decided to Mexican carry a Glock in the waist band of a pair of dress pants that had buttons on the inside for suspenders. Guess what Happened?
I know of a guy that shot himself in the calf with a .45 as he was sitting on his living room floor jacking rounds out of his gun by working the slide.

These are people, if I know, I don't want around me

JG, you must have very good eyes, but please increase your font size so the rest of us don't have to use a magnifying glass!

[jg rider]

JG, you must have very good eyes, but please increase your font size so the rest of us don't have to use a magnifying glass!

What happened? How did it get gigantic size?

[jg rider]

Actually the GOVT (more correctly the FEDERAL GOVT) does have a say. See the CONSTITUTION applies to everyone and every portion of the GOVT in the US. Federal and State and according to that Constitution the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed. To me that means that both the Federal Govt and the individual State govt(s) and the local township govts have not the right to pass any law which restricts on my ability to keep and bear. It is the duty of at least one part of the Federal Govt to ensure that the US Constitution is upheld by the laws passed by even the smallest of township govts. It is the duty of the people to ensure that all govts within the US are upholding the US Constitution and any govt they feel is not doing so should be brought to the attention of both the people and that portion of the Federal Govt that is charged with that duty.

What I meant is the gov't/2A give us the right own firearms, but the sates can say what you have to do to own them, and what you can or can't do with them. AFAIK the gov't doesn't have any say on how they do that. I think the 10A protects them, but I could be wrong. Look at N.Y.C. law, handgun permits are hell to get, and even rifles and shotguns have to be registered. Not so out of N.Y.C. D.C. v Heller may have been a win, but DC still puts it's people though the ringer.

So getting back to national reciprocity I think if the gov't say it needs to happen. It's gonna be the states that are gonna fight it, possibly under the 10A. Or the states will decide the rules

[tv_racin_fan]

What I meant is the gov't/2A give us the right own firearms, but the sates can say what you have to do to own them, and what you can or can't do with them. AFAIK the gov't doesn't have any say on how they do that. I think the 10A protects them, but I could be wrong. Look at N.Y.C. law, handgun permits are hell to get, and even rifles and shotguns have to be registered. Not so out of N.Y.C. D.C. v Heller may have been a win, but DC still puts it's people though the ringer.

So getting back to national reciprocity I think if the gov't say it needs to happen. It's gonna be the states that are gonna fight it, possibly under the 10A. Or the states will decide the rules

Oh I fully understand what you are saying but in my opinion both the federal govt and the states are wrong. Seems pretty straight forward to me the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed. BUT it isn't deemed so straight by either the federal or the state govt because that doesn't give them any power vis a vis firearms. Interesting how the SCOTUS ruled that the second amendment defends an individuals right but they still left it open for the states to infringe however the state likes up until the point of a total ban. I often wonder if they can read and comprehend the english language. But then I know they can because they read the first amendment and they seem to have that one sorted out.

My worry with a national reciprocity bill is that the federal govt by demand from the states will come up with some sort of national standard. Last thing the people of Vermont want is to now have to go to some class and pass some test in order to be allowed by their state to carry a firearm (Vermont is a constitutional carry state, no permit no permission needed, the US Constitution serves as their permit). I would love to have South Carolina recognize my permit from Georgia but I do not want Georgia to adopt the same regulations (or stricter) as South Carolina so that will occur.

The US Constitution is binding on both the Federal Govt and the individual state govts as well as the local govts. The 10th amendment gives tons of power to the states as far as laws go BUT it mentions nothing about giving state the power to infringe on the 2nd amendment the right to keep and bear having already been addressed therein.

[downtownv]

Maine and Florida require an approved Basic gun safety and practical pistol course completion certificate for Non Res licenses as well as the knowledge of Their states laws.
I just received these 2 with UT coming..... which was law only course.

[Planedude]

In Texas we shoot a 50 round course of fire at three (20rounds), seven (20 rounds)and fifteen yards (the last 10 rounds). Most folks have passed the test before the fifteen yard mark. Texas requires you use a Auto in your test, if you plan to carry one. You can test with a revolver and only carry the same.
When I took my class, it seemed we spent most of the range time on safety with a loaded gun over marksmanship trainning. I felt that was about right as nobody can learn to shoot well in 50 rounds. The rest of the course was on the law and understanding your resposibility inside it. I will have to renew my CHL this year for another five years. I'll have a 4 hour class and the 50 round shoot to renew.
In Texas we have reciprocity with Utah and many folks were getting an Utah CHL and carrying in Texas because it was cheaper than a Texas CHL. Well, the Texas gov put the kebash on that this year saying a Texas resedent needed a Texas CHL to carry in Texas...
I thought that fair, I stand on the side of proving that you have done some trainning sometime, that proves you were at least taught the most basic of gun safety and Texas law reguarding the CHL. I've met too many boobs that would scare the snot out of me wanting to carry without at least that. Not that they will learn all we need them to know in 8 hours! Again we get a state drivers license only after we prove we know and understand some random points of state law. In Texas enough folks are getting CHLs each year that the fees paid cover the cost of the program as run by the state DPS, so at least we are not a drain on the state budget.
I like the ideal of national reprocity but had never considered the slippery slope issues raised here. I just hate the fact that in Texas we allow New York CHL holders to carry, in keeping with Texas laws, during their visits here. If, however I was to visit New York I could get burned for having my pistol, unloaded and in the trunk of my rental car...
No logic there. There are many other states that Texas reprocity only goes the one way (them visiting us) and a more common ground would be nice. That said I don't want or need to to jump through New York like hoops for my Texas CHL.
Have a good one.

[chrish]

What I meant is the gov't/2A give us the right own firearms, but the sates can say what you have to do to own them, and what you can or can't do with them.

Have to disagree there. 2A says 'keep and bear'. If I understand your comment correctly, you would have to change the 2A to say 'keep', which would then allow the states to regulate 'bear'.

The 2A enumerates, unnecessarily if you believe in Federalist position on the BoR, that you have the right to 'keep and bear', which implies no federal or state law can infringe on that. CCW permits, training to own, # of guns per month, open carry regs, where/when you can carry, etc...all infringe on the 'bear'.

There are already laws, set forth by federal and state, that tell you want you can't DO with a gun (or car, or baseball bat, or a brick) that are totally Constitutional. Those are called murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, brandishing, assault, etc. Beyond those, keeping and bearing are not part of that equation.

Guess I'm a bit strict in my interpretation...probably to a fault.

[Chief Joseph]

JG, you must have very good eyes, but please increase your font size so the rest of us don't have to use a magnifying glass!

Hm, new rule the elitists should like. If you can't read this with naked eyes, you're not qualified to carry a gun. In fact, how about anyone needing glasses be considered unfit, since an occasion might arise that they lose their glasses, and it's the "innocents" that must be protected first, not the right to defend yourself. It may sound silly, but once the supposed 2nd Amendment elitists are all in on "requirements" before the right to keep and bear, just about anything could be used.

[jg rider]

Have to disagree there. 2A says 'keep and bear'. If I understand your comment correctly, you would have to change the 2A to say 'keep', which would then allow the states to regulate 'bear'.

The 2A enumerates, unnecessarily if you believe in Federalist position on the BoR, that you have the right to 'keep and bear', which implies no federal or state law can infringe on that. CCW permits, training to own, # of guns per month, open carry regs, where/when you can carry, etc...all infringe on the 'bear'.

There are already laws, set forth by federal and state, that tell you want you can't DO with a gun (or car, or baseball bat, or a brick) that are totally Constitutional. Those are called murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, brandishing, assault, etc. Beyond those, keeping and bearing are not part of that equation.

Guess I'm a bit strict in my interpretation...probably to a fault.

Please excuse my choice of words. I know how the 2A reads. I was saving myself some time typing . I hope most people knew what I meant. But I have difficulty in understanding what you mean in your first paragraph.

In your second paragraph, are you saying you're antifederalist? I'm not understanding. Yes I'm glad that the first 10 articles of the Bill of Rights were added to the constitution. As I understand it, the constitution wasn't very specific. I think if the antifederalist's had won with their Articles of Confederation, we would have the 13 states then and now being sovereign states. Some saying "no guns allowed", printing there own currency, and possibly in this litigious age we'd probably need passports to cross state lines. But hey, I'm not that well knowledgeable on American constitutional history.

As for my post with a now "keep and bear" correction. Isn't that what I said in paragraph 3

Enough my head hurts!

Are we gonna get in trouble for going off topic?

[RedRyder]

Since this thread originally started based upon the reciprocity of NM's carry permits, I thought I'd provide a website that sort of explains the NM position on their decisions for reciprocity.

http://www.dps.nm.org/index.php/nm-c...ty-agreements/

They are looking for substantial similarity to their own requirements for licensing and if the state's requirements are not similar, they won't grant reciprocity. It goes without saying that there is a lot of quid pro quo going on; therefore if one state does not honor another, then they won't honor them, even if that other state is more stringent.

It would be nice if there were some national standards; however, I have to agree with many that have sounded off on this topic that how do we know those standards would be realistic and not lead to ridiculous abuse by the liberals.

Hope this helps with the original intent of the thread.