Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
steveaikens wrote:
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"?
steveaikens wrote:
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.rpyne wrote: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.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. 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
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"?