NV Reciprocity Improving Soon: UT CFP Go; IN Larry No-Go....

[AngryRooster]

Just get a Utah permit. You get training and NV carry. Your own choice. Not mandated.

I would call the instruction that comes with the Utah an introduction, safety & awareness briefing more than I would "training".

Individual training will be just that, individual. The business owner who wants to keep his business and employees safe will have different needs and requirements than the guy who keeps it with him all the time. A person who lives in an apartment complex will need different tactics than the guy who has a several hundred acre ranch. Someone who is disabled or in a wheelchair permanently will require different handling skills than others. Yes there is quite a bit of crossover and the safety rules apply the same, however a government planned and mandated program will not touch on the specifics each individual needs. Some states consider hunter education acceptable "training". I went through hunter ed twice in my life. Once way back in school in the 80s and once online a few years ago when I was thinking about the Florida before I got the Utah instead. I would not consider someone who has never had any firearm experience to be trained after going through that program, but it's good enough to satisfy the law in places.

Training is always a good idea, just make sure it's the appropriate training. In order to accomplish something you need to know what it is you wish to accomplish.

 

[chipbennett]

So this made me think. Would you (anyone here) support Indiana requiring training for our license? It is another layer of government infringement but it would make our license accepted in more states.

I have very mixed feelings personally. Training is good, but government mandated training is something else.

No, I'd rather push for federal reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

I would call the instruction that comes with the Utah an introduction, safety & awareness briefing more than I would "training".

Agreed. It still gets you NV carry. That was my only point.

 

[Roadie]

Just get a Utah permit. You get training and NV carry. Your own choice. Not mandated.

handgulaw.us says that NV only allows reciprocity with:

Alaska
Arkansas
Idaho (Enhanced Only)
Illinois
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Nebraska
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota (Class 1 Only)
Ohio
South Carolina
Tennessee

I didn't read the entire PDF, but I assume that this list will be changing?

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

The premise of the OP is that new legislation will recognize UT.

 

[Roadie]

The premise of the OP is that new legislation will recognize UT.

Thanks for clarifying

 

[Who Dares Wins]

The premise of the OP is that new legislation will recognize UT.

Hopefully they are correct here!

i.e. My UT permit will gain another state!

 

[Roadie]

Do you know how embarrassing it is, as a Mod, to realize that you TOTALLY missed the Subject line of a thread, and asked a stupid question that had already been answered BY that Subject line?

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, I'd rather push for federal reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses.

No

 

[Bill of Rights]

The split permit was suggested a couple of years ago and quickly and appropriately shot down. Other states are changing their requirements. Our LTCH alone is recognized in 31 states now. With AZ and UT, I added six more that I can lawfully carry, the remaining 13 being CA, HI, IL, ME, NY, NJ, SC, MA, CT, RI, NV, OR, and MD. Most of those have some form of non-resident carry license you can get from them(may issue and difficult/expensive, but available) if you want it, I think the only ones that don't are CA, NY, IL, and HI. (and IL has one, but we're not eligible to apply for it, living in IN)

The way to approach this is state by state. I can support telling them they have to abide by the 14A saying that the acts of one state will be accepted in the others, but beyond that, I think, is too much federal involvement. A training "option" will quickly become a training requirement. No thanks. Glad to see NV loosening up their laws. It can only benefit their residents.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

IN LTCH could easily get WV if we could just get Pence to write a one paragraph letter. It soooo frustrating!

 

[chipbennett]

No

I know. It would be a darn shame if Nevada had to provide full faith and credit for my Indiana-issued carry license, and be stopped from infringing upon my natural, constitutionally protected right to carry a firearm in that State.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

The premise of the OP is that new legislation will recognize UT.

Not unless i'm reading it wrong - a good possibility - sounds like in 4.5 they will still require training. Indiana does not mandate training. Therefore, still can't carry in NV.

 

[rhino]

Do you know how embarrassing it is, as a Mod, to realize that you TOTALLY missed the Subject line of a thread, and asked a stupid question that had already been answered BY that Subject line?

No, sir! I do not know how embarrassing it is, as a Mod, to realize that you TOTALLY missed the Subject line of a thread, and asked a stupid question that had already been answered BY that Subject line.

Could you share with us your experience, as a Mod, regarding the issue of how embarrassing it is, as a Mod, to realize that you TOTALLY missed the Subject line of a thread, and asked a stupid question that had already been answered BY that Subject line?

Then we who are not Mods would know just how embarrassing it is, as a Mod, to realize that you TOTALLY missed the Subject line of a thread, and asked a stupid question that had already been answered BY that Subject line.

 

[opus1776]

Not unless i'm reading it wrong - a good possibility - sounds like in 4.5 they will still require training. Indiana does not mandate training. Therefore, still can't carry in NV.

Which is what I stated in the title of the thread --- that IN would still not be recognized. Those of us who have a UT CFP (and maybe a few other states) should have our permits recognized. As for the training part of the law it states:

"

Determine whether each​

state requires a person to complete any training, class or program
before the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed firearm in​

that state .










======================================
"Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels" K. Moss
You can NEVER be too rich or too thin.
Life is not a journey, but a series of unplanned detours...
Perfection: is not a goal---it's a demanded expectation.

 

[Roadie]

No, sir! I do not know how embarrassing it is, as a Mod, to realize that you TOTALLY missed the Subject line of a thread, and asked a stupid question that had already been answered BY that Subject line.

Could you share with us your experience, as a Mod, regarding the issue of how embarrassing it is, as a Mod, to realize that you TOTALLY missed the Subject line of a thread, and asked a stupid question that had already been answered BY that Subject line?

Then we who are not Mods would know just how embarrassing it is, as a Mod, to realize that you TOTALLY missed the Subject line of a thread, and asked a stupid question that had already been answered BY that Subject line.

 

[rhino]

View attachment 38812

Nooooooooooooooo!!! Not the Big Eyes! Anything but the Big Eyes!!!!!

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Which is what I stated in the title of the thread --- that IN would still not be recognized. Those of us who have a UT CFP (and maybe a few other states) should have our permits recognized. As for the training part of the law it states:

"

Determine whether each​

state requires a person to complete any training, class or program
before the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed firearm in​

that state .

The reading comprehension in this thread is outstanding

 

[Bill of Rights]

No, I'd rather push for federal reciprocity of state-issued resident carry licenses.

No

I know. It would be a darn shame if Nevada had to provide full faith and credit for my Indiana-issued carry license, and be stopped from infringing upon my natural, constitutionally protected right to carry a firearm in that State.

While I agree with your point, Chip, and the rationale you gave for it, I am left wondering....

Why, Kut? You offer no reasoning or rationale for your objection to federal reciprocity of state issued carry licenses.
As it stands, (and I recognize that these are not new points in the discussion) drivers licenses are recognized as valid in all states if issued by any, and SCOTUS seems to be leaning toward marriage licenses in any being valid in all. As a medic, my license is valid in Indiana, but that recognition is extended in the event of disaster to "anywhere" and if I travel, I don't have to re-do my whole course of education to be licensed in another state, I just have to sit for their test (which I'm eligible to do because of my current license) Similarly, nurses can do likewise to move from state to state. So why would my carry license not be eligible to be considered valid because I've crossed an arbitrary line on a map, if I'm obeying local laws? (by which I mean, specifically, that, to use Utah and Indiana as the example, a Utah permit holder can, while in Utah, carry in K-12 schools, and has been able to do so lawfully for many years. Said person could not do so lawfully here in IN, and must obey those laws, both federal and state, forbidding it, while in Indiana. I also refer to other laws regarding carry, of which we have blessedly few, but which some states include "no carry in banks", "no carry in bars", and "no carry past a certain sign", among.)

So again, Kut, since you object to federal reciprocity of state issued carry licenses/permits/whatever, I have to ask why you so object?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[chipbennett]

While I agree with your point, Chip, and the rationale you gave for it, I am left wondering....

The rationale is simply that State A should not be able to infringe upon the natural, constitutionally protected rights of a citizen from State B. Both State A and State B issue licenses to their residents that allow (*cough, cough*) those residents to exercise their right to bear arms. That right should not arbitrarily end at an imaginary line, especially since both State A and State B recognize the right and provide a means to exercise it.