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

[chrish]

Well, yes and no based on my understanding and reading. Yes, a strong central gov't. No that the federal gov't be in total control. His whole argument was predicated around the need for cohesion between the states and the only way to achieve that was a strong central gov't...i.e. the Articles of Confederation hadn't worked. No from the standpoint of the federal gov't having complete control, it was very much tied to limiting ONLY to those things specifically enumerated. So, based on that, Clause 18 is all laws pertaining to areas already enumerated, which almost NO federal law that exists today passes muster if you ask me.

But were you brainwashed, I doubt it. You can very much make the argument the other way. There is a reason there was such a fierce debate between the two camps. Both were right, both were wrong. I think there are issues, pros, cons w/ each side of the story and much of what Hamilton thought hasn't run it's course and he's probably rolling in his grave.

Like I said, I just find myself feeling more comfortable w/ the Federalist train of thought. But am I going to promote NOT having the BoR given the way things have gone for the last 200 years...no way! So I guess I'm admitting there that they have turned out to be mostly a good thing. But if we COULD have stuck to the Federalist position 100% of the time, I believe we'd be better off today.

I've read good amounts of the Federalist papers, but oh yea, it's slobber on yourself material to try and read...and I can by no means quote you #, paragraph and sentence. Not sure whether you like Glenn Beck, I think he's a bit melodramatic and a bit of a tin foil hat in some areas...but I also believe he has done a pile of good research and analysis on the Constitution and the Federalist papers. If you don't mind him, check out The Original Argument, it's a good read...very enjoyable. It pretty much brings the Federalist papers up to modern language.

I agree, we are WAY off topic here. I think I'm going to take a political break on KahrTalk and go find a gun topic to chat about.

[LCPIWB]

As this thread has not been updated in a while...
NM is adding back receprocity for FL and other states.

[wyntrout]

I saw that at the New Mexico site last week, but Florida hadn't updated their list yet. I just checked Florida's Reciprocity List and it was updated yesterday... yay!

As long as my wife's working, I don't think we'll be driving out to Colorado, but you never know.

Wynn

[yqtszhj]

On New Mexico. The way I read their rules you can keep a handgun in your car when traveling through the state anyway. The law is written just like it's your home and allowed. You just cant remove it and carry concealed. It may protect you from being carjacked anyway.

Look at this site:
http://www.usacarry.com/new_mexico_c...formation.html

Automobile carry:
Loaded, concealed firearms may be carried anywhere in a private automobile for self-protection.

Just eat at a drive in when traveling through NM.

[nmkahrshooter]

Going to re-new CCW this weekend. Have to sit in class and then re-qualify with gun. I think they dropped other states is because our requirements are a lot stiffer than most states. On the bright side, when you come to New Mexico at least you know the person carrying actually knows how to fire the weapon!

[TheTman]

Someone asked if we had to take a firearms proficiency test. In Kansas we have to go thru a certain amount of class time going thru the laws, and when it's legal to defend yourself, then we had to shoot 5 rounds one handed at 3 yards, 10 two handed at 5 yards, and another 10 two handed at 7 yards. If 17 of 25 shots hit in the target zone you qualify. And of course you have to load and reload your own weapon.

[RedRyder]

According to NM website regarding reciprocity, these are the values they look for in other states in order to establish if their requirements are essentially similar to NM.

Permits issued locally rather than by the state;
No fingerprint-based background check;
Permits issued to persons under 21 years of age;
Permits issued to resident aliens;
No classroom (static) training required;
No live-fire (dynamic) training required.

There is also a great deal of quid pro quo. You recognize mine or I won't recognize yours going on too.

If we only had some decent lawmakers in Washington that could establish some REASONABLE national or minimum requirements then perhaps that would work but of course that AIN'T gonna happen.