Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: No more Utah permits

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    Effective immediately, NM will no longer recognize Utah permits:

    New Mexico DPS | CCW Info

    There has been talk a change for awhile, since many NM residents have chosen to get Utah rather than NM permits, but people I know expected that change to be that NM residents would need local permits.

    There are 18 other states whose permits may not be honored in the future (see link above) including Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming ...

    Likely to see more open carry... and a lot more attention to the strange NM regulations regarding carrying concealed weapons unloaded, which have been discussed on this forum several times before...

    Mark

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Socorro County, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    I see DPS is moving backwards, not forward.

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    I think the best solution to this problem in the long term is to push for legislation to adopt Arizona'a current reciprocity/recognition law, which recognizes all other states' licenses as long as the individual is at least 21 years old and a nonresident. Although you would have to give up the option of using another state's license to carry in your own state, you would get the benefit of significantly-expanded reciprocity because your state would honor all other states' licenses.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  4. #4
    Regular Member jamesisel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee ,WI
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY!!!!!
    NO PERMISSION SLIP FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO EXERCISE A RIGHT!

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792

    Post imported post

    WVCDL wrote:
    I think the best solution to this problem in the long term is to push for legislation to adopt Arizona'a current reciprocity/recognition law, which recognizes all other states' licenses as long as the individual is at least 21 years old and a nonresident. Although you would have to give up the option of using another state's license to carry in your own state, you would get the benefit of significantly-expanded reciprocity because your state would honor all other states' licenses.
    I think this is a great first step toward expanding reciprocity. Frankly, I always get a little concerned when I see instructors or even residents of a given State encouraging the use of a non-resident permit to avoid some aspect of the home-State's requirements. It seems that more often than not, the home State just drops recognition of the out-of-State permits entirely.

    Requiring State residents to carry on a home-State permit also has the advantage of keeping the locals actively involved and interested in what local laws are for getting a permit. That tends to keep things moving in the right direction.

    Of course, we should all, also be pushing to follow Arizona's lead on Constitutional Carry.

    Charles
    from utah
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    This has forced me into Open Carry!!!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Rio Rancho, New Mexico, United States
    Posts
    348

    Post imported post

    What needs to happen is for New Mexico to start giving Non Residents IE Non US citizens the rights to get a NM CCW as I'm sure that a lot of people that are now in the lurch are non Citizens
    A gun Owner Is A Citizen
    Anyone Else is a Subject

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    Like Nevada, the training issue is just an excuse, the real issue is the revenue lost to out of state permits.

    This just adds one more state that will not get one red cent of my hard earned money.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    Like Nevada, the training issue is just an excuse, the real issue is the revenue lost to out of state permits.

    This just adds one more state that will not get one red cent of my hard earned money.
    Hell yes it is! $125 to take the class, not to mention all of the fingerprinting/photo fees. Plus an additional $100 to apply for the permit. It's all about the cash!

  10. #10
    Regular Member jamesisel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee ,WI
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    The whole idea of having to get a permit at all is crap.
    But since we are stuck with it in some states for the time being I think that the best option is to make citizens obtain a permit in the state they are a resident of and make the state recognize all other states permits for non residents

  11. #11
    Regular Member desert-prospector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    (City of the Crosses), Las Cruces New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    72

    Post imported post

    Here's my permit:

    Sec. 6. No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    desert-prospector wrote:
    Here's my permit:

    Sec. 6. No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

  13. #13
    Regular Member desert-prospector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    (City of the Crosses), Las Cruces New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    72

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    desert-prospector wrote:
    Here's my permit:

    Sec. 6. No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
    Don't know what your point would be, but this is what I meant to stress:

    "No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076

    Post imported post

    desert-prospector wrote:
    rpyne wrote:
    desert-prospector wrote:
    Here's my permit:

    Sec. 6. No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
    Don't know what your point would be, but this is what I meant to stress:

    "No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
    My point is that there is no New Mexico State constitutional protection for carrying concealed weapons, so how would it be your permit?

  15. #15
    Regular Member desert-prospector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    (City of the Crosses), Las Cruces New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    72

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    My point is that there is no New Mexico State constitutional protection for carrying concealed weapons, so how would it be your permit?
    I only open carry! I don't need no permit!

  16. #16
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    219

    Post imported post

    rpyne wrote:
    Like Nevada, the training issue is just an excuse, the real issue is the revenue lost to out of state permits.

    This just adds one more state that will not get one red cent of my hard earned money.
    NM continues to recognize the same states it did before Friday, except UT. Reciprocity is being reviewed with other states and may actually improve. At this time, other than TX, NM does not have a reciprocal agreement with any other state but is in the process of converting states currently honored to agreements.

    For the record, there is significant rhetoric on numerous forums claiming this is about money, about instructors whining and all kinds of crap. Crap is exactly what that is. It's not about money. The DPS CCU spends $81 per original license and $67 per renewal - hardly a moneymaker. I have never heard one word from any NM instructor that UT instructors were undercutting them.

    Utah does not, nor have they ever had a handgun proficiency/competence requirement in their training. I am the person that compiled the original list of states for DPS, that met our statute of "substantially similar" requirement for reciprocity. Utah was NEVER on that list - it was added to the list by someone at DPS IN ERROR. DPS has corrected that error. DPS has requested an up-to-date list. That list has been compiled and they will have it in the next couple days - after I have re-verified that data.

    The bottom line here is pretty simple. The statute is crystal clear in it's requirements. Meet them, you're on the list - don't meet them, you're off the list.

    Steve Aikens

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    15

    Post imported post

    steveaikens wrote:
    rpyne wrote:
    Like Nevada, the training issue is just an excuse, the real issue is the revenue lost to out of state permits.

    This just adds one more state that will not get one red cent of my hard earned money.
    NM continues to recognize the same states it did before Friday, except UT. Reciprocity is being reviewed with other states and may actually improve. At this time, other than TX, NM does not have a reciprocal agreement with any other state but is in the process of converting states currently honored to agreements.

    For the record, there is significant rhetoric on numerous forums claiming this is about money, about instructors whining and all kinds of crap. Crap is exactly what that is. It's not about money. The DPS CCU spends $81 per original license and $67 per renewal - hardly a moneymaker. I have never heard one word from any NM instructor that UT instructors were undercutting them.

    Utah does not, nor have they ever had a handgun proficiency/competence requirement in their training. I am the person that compiled the original list of states for DPS, that met our statute of "substantially similar" requirement for reciprocity. Utah was NEVER on that list - it was added to the list by someone at DPS IN ERROR. DPS has corrected that error. DPS has requested an up-to-date list. That list has been compiled and they will have it in the next couple days - after I have re-verified that data.

    The bottom line here is pretty simple. The statute is crystal clear in it's requirements. Meet them, you're on the list - don't meet them, you're off the list.

    Steve Aikens
    There are a couple of inaccuracies in your last post.

    First, the problem is not Utah instructors undercutting NM instructors, it is NM instructors were acting as Utah instructors and selling a "Utah training package" instead of a "NM training package" here within the State's boundaries.

    Second, Utah does have shooting proficiencies. When I obtained my permit, in Utah, I had to qualify at various distances with both a pistol and a revolver.

  18. #18
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    219

    Post imported post

    From an email reply I sent to NM DPS CCU in August when they were looking at Utah reciprocity.

    Utah does not now, nor have they ever had a practical range proficiency requirement. This is confirmed this morning by Officer Jeff Dunn at the Utah CHL Licensing Dept. Jeff is the instructor licensing authority for Utah.

    You can contact Jeff at:

    Bureau of Criminal Identification
    3888 West 5400 South
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84118
    Telephone: 801-965-4445

    Where you may be accurate in your statement that you were required by your instructor to demonstrate proficiency - it has never been a requirement in their statutes.

    When I say UT instructors - I don't mean instructors from UT. I mean instructors certified by UT to certify UT licensees.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Carson City, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    344

    Post imported post

    steveaikens wrote:
    From an email reply I sent to NM DPS CCU in August when they were looking at Utah reciprocity.

    Utah does not now, nor have they ever had a practical range proficiency requirement. This is confirmed this morning by Officer Jeff Dunn at the Utah CHL Licensing Dept. Jeff is the instructor licensing authority for Utah.

    You can contact Jeff at:

    Bureau of Criminal Identification
    3888 West 5400 South
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84118
    Telephone: 801-965-4445

    Where you may be accurate in your statement that you were required by your instructor to demonstrate proficiency - it has never been a requirement in their statutes.

    When I say UT instructors - I don't mean instructors from UT. I mean instructors certified by UT to certify UT licensees.
    That is correct, as I've also talked to Jeff Dunn about this.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    steveaikens wrote:
    rpyne wrote:
    Like Nevada, the training issue is just an excuse, the real issue is the revenue lost to out of state permits.

    This just adds one more state that will not get one red cent of my hard earned money.
    ...
    For the record, there is significant rhetoric on numerous forums claiming this is about money, about instructors whining and all kinds of crap. Crap is exactly what that is. It's not about money. The DPS CCU spends $81 per original license and $67 per renewal - hardly a moneymaker...

    The bottom line here is pretty simple. The statute is crystal clear in it's requirements. Meet them, you're on the list - don't meet them, you're off the list.

    Steve Aikens
    Steve you are a bit off on your figures. New permits are $100.00 and renewals are $75.00. It has more to do with the money than I think you'd like to recognize. As far as I am concernedI will not be patronizing New Mexico anymore. I'll vacation somewhere else. We are trying to wratchet up our permitting process here and restrict the availability of the Utah permit as it pertains to those not from our state unless certain conditions are met. While you work to ensure that our Utah permit is not recognized by your state, you can rest assured that we here in Utah will do everything in our power to make sure that your permit is stillrecognized by our state. After all, unlike you, we care about your right to keep and bear arms everywhere legally allowed in our state.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    steveaikens wrote:
    rpyne wrote:
    Like Nevada, the training issue is just an excuse, the real issue is the revenue lost to out of state permits.

    This just adds one more state that will not get one red cent of my hard earned money.
    NM continues to recognize the same states it did before Friday, except UT. Reciprocity is being reviewed with other states and may actually improve. At this time, other than TX, NM does not have a reciprocal agreement with any other state but is in the process of converting states currently honored to agreements.

    For the record, there is significant rhetoric on numerous forums claiming this is about money, about instructors whining and all kinds of crap. Crap is exactly what that is. It's not about money. The DPS CCU spends $81 per original license and $67 per renewal - hardly a moneymaker. I have never heard one word from any NM instructor that UT instructors were undercutting them.

    Utah does not, nor have they ever had a handgun proficiency/competence requirement in their training. I am the person that compiled the original list of states for DPS, that met our statute of "substantially similar" requirement for reciprocity. Utah was NEVER on that list - it was added to the list by someone at DPS IN ERROR. DPS has corrected that error. DPS has requested an up-to-date list. That list has been compiled and they will have it in the next couple days - after I have re-verified that data.

    The bottom line here is pretty simple. The statute is crystal clear in it's requirements. Meet them, you're on the list - don't meet them, you're off the list.

    Steve Aikens
    So basically what you're saying is that Utah should have never been on the list in the first place, but posted so. Though certainly given the existence of it on "the posted list" generally gives an excuse to those who may have carried accidentally illegally due to DPS' mess up here. Beyond this point, no go.

    That being said, perhaps a law change is in order? Arizona a few years back recognized ALL out of state licenses save for residents of Arizona who had to get their own state license. Wouldn't that be better to do this instead of all this hand wringing over "money issues"?

  22. #22
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    219

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    steveaikens wrote:
    rpyne wrote:
    Like Nevada, the training issue is just an excuse, the real issue is the revenue lost to out of state permits.

    This just adds one more state that will not get one red cent of my hard earned money.
    NM continues to recognize the same states it did before Friday, except UT. Reciprocity is being reviewed with other states and may actually improve. At this time, other than TX, NM does not have a reciprocal agreement with any other state but is in the process of converting states currently honored to agreements.

    For the record, there is significant rhetoric on numerous forums claiming this is about money, about instructors whining and all kinds of crap. Crap is exactly what that is. It's not about money. The DPS CCU spends $81 per original license and $67 per renewal - hardly a moneymaker. I have never heard one word from any NM instructor that UT instructors were undercutting them.

    Utah does not, nor have they ever had a handgun proficiency/competence requirement in their training. I am the person that compiled the original list of states for DPS, that met our statute of "substantially similar" requirement for reciprocity. Utah was NEVER on that list - it was added to the list by someone at DPS IN ERROR. DPS has corrected that error. DPS has requested an up-to-date list. That list has been compiled and they will have it in the next couple days - after I have re-verified that data.

    The bottom line here is pretty simple. The statute is crystal clear in it's requirements. Meet them, you're on the list - don't meet them, you're off the list.

    Steve Aikens
    So basically what you're saying is that Utah should have never been on the list in the first place, but posted so. Though certainly given the existence of it on "the posted list" generally gives an excuse to those who may have carried accidentally illegally due to DPS' mess up here. Beyond this point, no go.

    That being said, perhaps a law change is in order? Arizona a few years back recognized ALL out of state licenses save for residents of Arizona who had to get their own state license. Wouldn't that be better to do this instead of all this hand wringing over "money issues"?

    That's correct, Gray. There are all kinds of potential legal issues involved when a state has a requirement in it's Statute that it either ignores or chooses not to enforce, especially so with firearms Statutes. In this case, had someone with a UT license - and not a NM license - been involved in an incident that hurt or killed someone here in NM, the state most likely would have been sued, would have lost because they would have been seen as "encouraging" someone that was in violation of the Statute to bring that concealed firearm into the state - regardless of our very liberal open carry Statutes. This has been a significant discussion issue here for some time. I'm really pleased that those carrying in our state - regardless of where they came from or were licensed from have been very judicious in conflict avoidance and there haven't been any incidents. Had there been any, not only would the CHL program here been in jeopardy, there would have been certain "spill-over" into our open carry Statutes as well.

    As to opening up our honors U.S. wide, I can't begin to relate to you how happy that would make me. As you'll recall from our conversations from years ago, I'm a Constitutionalist. As such, I firmly believe the Constitution is a dead document. By that I mean we don't have the latitude to piddle with it - it is what it is -and what it is, is the foundation of principals and rights of the people of the U.S.. It should NOT be changed to suit the whims of those that don't agree with any portion of what the founding fathers created as the law of the land.

    What's all that mean? IMO, every man and woman - as citizens of the U.S., including legal aliens here supporting our nation - has the RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms in this country. I am 100 percent for open carry AND concealed carry - without licenses. I can't tell you how happy I am with Gov. Brewer's signature allowing unlicensed concealed carry in AZ. Though I live in NM, I have a home in AZ as well.

    All that said, unfortunately, NM is absolutely not ready to open honors to states that don't have licensing requirements that are "substantially similar" to those of NM.

    Knowing what you do in your state, I'm positive you're familiar with the roadblocks the liberals can toss in our way when we try to make positive improvements to our rights within our respective states. I don't know what your legislativ3 climate is in WA but we here in NM have been saddled with a liberal left legislature for far too many years. Frankly, I'm often surprised with some of the changes we have succeeded in making here, to our firearms laws when you consider the mindset of our legislature. I'm working hard to see a change - and hopefully, we can get some common sense changes made here this year. We need to move to a more conservative legislature. I could go on but I know you understand where I'm coming from.

    BTW, nice to see you drop in here again. Hope all is well on your end.

    Steve Aikens




  23. #23
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Clovis, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    219

    Post imported post

    Rottie wrote:
    steveaikens wrote:
    ...
    For the record, there is significant rhetoric on numerous forums claiming this is about money, about instructors whining and all kinds of crap. Crap is exactly what that is. It's not about money. The DPS CCU spends $81 per original license and $67 per renewal - hardly a moneymaker...

    The bottom line here is pretty simple. The statute is crystal clear in it's requirements. Meet them, you're on the list - don't meet them, you're off the list.

    Steve Aikens
    Steve you are a bit off on your figures. New permits are $100.00 and renewals are $75.00. It has more to do with the money than I think you'd like to recognize. As far as I am concernedI will not be patronizing New Mexico anymore. I'll vacation somewhere else. We are trying to wratchet up our permitting process here and restrict the availability of the Utah permit as it pertains to those not from our state unless certain conditions are met. While you work to ensure that our Utah permit is not recognized by your state, you can rest assured that we here in Utah will do everything in our power to make sure that your permit is stillrecognized by our state. After all, unlike you, we care about your right to keep and bear arms everywhere legally allowed in our state.
    Wow.

    First, I'm not off on my figures. You're reading what you want to read, not what I posted. The cost to NM DPS to do the required background clearences etc., to create a new license is $81. The cost to an original license applicant is $100.

    From your comments, you don't have a clue to the legal ramifications of NM recognizing a state license that does not meet the requirements within our Statute.

    Lastly, if you think for one second that I am somehow against your right to carry - you are sadly mistaken and absolutely not worth my time to respond to in the future.

    A very pissed-off --- SteveAikens.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605

    Post imported post

    Disrespecting Mr. Steve Aikens is about the worst mistake you can make!



  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    steveaikens wrote:
    All that said, unfortunately, NM is absolutely not ready to open honors to states that don't have licensing requirements that are "substantially similar" to those of NM.

    Knowing what you do in your state, I'm positive you're familiar with the roadblocks the liberals can toss in our way when we try to make positive improvements to our rights within our respective states. I don't know what your legislativ3 climate is in WA but we here in NM have been saddled with a liberal left legislature for far too many years. Frankly, I'm often surprised with some of the changes we have succeeded in making here, to our firearms laws when you consider the mindset of our legislature. I'm working hard to see a change - and hopefully, we can get some common sense changes made here this year. We need to move to a more conservative legislature. I could go on but I know you understand where I'm coming from.

    BTW, nice to see you drop in here again. Hope all is well on your end.

    Steve Aikens


    As a good friend of mine keeps telling me: Wait until after the 2010 elections to know which cards you have to deal.

    Personally, I just hope we don't lose FL too.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •