Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: New Mexico no longer recognizes Utah Carry Permit

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    FYI:

    State of New Mexico Department of Public Safety
    April 23, 2010 Contact: Peter Olson (505) 827-3361

    New Mexico No Longer Recognizes Utah Concealed Carry License

    Santa Fe—Effective immediately New Mexico will no longer recognize concealed carry licenses issued by the State of Utah for the purposes of reciprocity in New Mexico, as the requirements for licensure in Utah do not meet the standards required in New Mexico statute. Rules governing the concealed carrying of weapons and issuance of licenses require that training and other provisions be as stringent or substantially similar to New Mexico requirements.

    Questions concerning licenses obtained from Utah by New Mexico residents have made it necessary to reevaluate which states will be recognized as valid in New Mexico. “We’ve had situations where certain concealed carry instructors in New Mexico solicit clients with the promise that if they train here and obtain a Utah license, which entails significantly less training than does a New Mexico license, it will qualify here,” said Department of Public Safety Secretary John Denko. “This is incorrect, and is nothing less than an effort to circumvent New Mexico concealed carry requirements which are designed to protect the public safety while honoring individual rights under the Second Amendment of the constitution.”

    The state will also review the status of eighteen other states currently recognized on an informal basis, with the intent of entering into written agreements with these states to ensure compliance with New Mexico law. These states are: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming.

    New Mexico currently has a written reciprocity agreement in place with Texas; the status of this agreement will remain unchanged.

    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.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Thread on the New Mexico portion of the site at http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum39/42917.html
    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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Thanks for briniging this to our attention utbagpiper. It is too bad, but unfortunately in my personal opinion we have cheapened our own permit by allowing individuals to get a utah permit without ever having to come to the state of Utah. It appears that there was some consideration given to dropping the Utah permit as a result of instructors offering New Mexico resident Utah permits in lieu of going through the more rigorous New Mexico standards, and I think that hurt us. I am not saying I am in favor of tightening up the requirements or making them more stringent here in Utah, but we really should be more protective of the permit and require those that get it to at least come to the state for instruction. I don't care what those from out of state think of my opinion, I fear however that this is just the beginning of what could be a future pattern of lost reciprocity or recognition. Thanks again for the post!

  4. #4
    Regular Member LovesHisXD45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    580

    Post imported post

    Speaking of reciprocity, I heard a rumor that Nevada repealed its decision not to recognize Utah permits. Is there any meat to this, or is it just conjecture from a co-worker? Last I heard, their position on the matter was unchanged.

    Kevin
    If it isn't broke, then don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broke.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SLC, Utah, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    LovesHisXD45 wrote:
    Speaking of reciprocity, I heard a rumor that Nevada repealed its decision not to recognize Utah permits. Is there any meat to this, or is it just conjecture from a co-worker? Last I heard, their position on the matter was unchanged.

    Kevin
    That is true as well... I had a trip planned to Las Vegas, but decided against it due to their decision

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SLC, Utah, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Rottie wrote:
    Thanks for briniging this to our attention utbagpiper. It is too bad, but unfortunately in my personal opinion we have cheapened our own permit by allowing individuals to get a utah permit without ever having to come to the state of Utah. It appears that there was some consideration given to dropping the Utah permit as a result of instructors offering New Mexico resident Utah permits in lieu of going through the more rigorous New Mexico standards, and I think that hurt us. I am not saying I am in favor of tightening up the requirements or making them more stringent here in Utah, but we really should be more protective of the permit and require those that get it to at least come to the state for instruction. I don't care what those from out of state think of my opinion, I fear however that this is just the beginning of what could be a future pattern of lost reciprocity or recognition. Thanks again for the post!
    My question is, why don't they just say, "if you live in New Mexico, you need a permit from New Mexico."? Or like Colorado, and accept Utah permits as long as the holder is a Utah resident?

    I think I'm going to send a letter to NM and NV, any ideas who to send them to?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    YoZUpZ wrote:
    My question is, why don't they just say, "if you live in New Mexico, you need a permit from New Mexico."? Or like Colorado, and accept Utah permits as long as the holder is a Utah resident?
    That may have required a legislative change, where ending reciprocity was an administrative change.

    I'm just guessing, but it makes sense, and fits.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    YoZUpZ wrote:

    I think I'm going to send a letter to NM and NV, any ideas who to send them to?
    In New Mexico, send it to the State's Department of of Public Safety
    April 23, 2010 Contact: Peter Olson (505) 827-3361.

    In Nevada it is the association of Sheriffs who makes the determination of which permits to recognize and which to reject.

    But in both cases, I'd suggest also sending a letter to the tourist board and State legislators letting them know why you are choosing to spend your vacation/tourist/convention dollars in Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, etc, RATHER than in Nevada or New Mexico.

    Charles
    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.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    One more thought here. NM will happily issue you a non-resident permit (for a fee). And, NM enjoys extended domain so it is perfectly legal to carry in your car without a permit.

    On the flip side, NM bans carrying (even with a permit) into ANY establishment that sells alcohol, including for off premises consumption. Good luck finding a gas station, grocery store, etc that doesn't sell at least beer. All are off limits to legal carry anyway. You cannot legally carry a gun while eating out except maybe at a McDonalds. You can't legally walk into a gas station with a gun anyway.

    Simply put, while I'd rather have recognition than not, it isn't like we've lost anything huge here.

    Any corrections or counter-thoughts?

    Charles
    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.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Charles I agree that we have not lost anything huge here. I do worry about the message this sends to those observing as well as other states who are experiencing the same problem with the Utah permit. I'd like to lobby here and get it so that out of staters may not get Utah permits without coming here. I am sure that New Mexico's decision also had financial reasons for no longer recognizing the Utah permit. I heard Clark Aphosian talking about it on the radio today and he stated that he thought the financial reasons of loss of revenue for out of state permits was a contributing factor. I can see that point. I think NM went about this the wrong way though. It would have been just as easy to say they will only honor Utah permits held by Utah residents and it would have accomplished the same thing. My initial knee jerk reaction was that we should turn around and not recognize New mexico permits, however after 5 seconds of thought it is clear that this helps nothing and would only hurt second ammendment supporters from NM.

    I would like to see the Utah permit more protected and not given out so easily to those out of state, though I think it should still be available to those who actually come here. While I want to lobby to have this happen I am not oblivious to the law of unintended consequences. Can you think of what some of the negatives might be for trying to get this changed?

  11. #11
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Rottie wrote:
    I would like to see the Utah permit more protected and not given out so easily to those out of state, though I think it should still be available to those who actually come here. While I want to lobby to have this happen I am not oblivious to the law of unintended consequences. Can you think of what some of the negatives might be for trying to get this changed?
    It's a step in the wrong direction, for starters. Why impose further limitations on what should be a protected right?
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Rottie,

    I'm not unsympathetic to your views here. Speaking only for myself, I am slightly less charitable than some others and if the choice were to clearly be between preserving the value and acceptance of the Utah permit for Utahns, or in keeping the permit as easy as possible for non-Utahns to acquire at the expense of losing recognition, I'd side with protecting the permit.

    It is, after all, Utahns who have worked to make our permit laws what they are. But I don't know that this was the case here. The problem is Utah's permit is in certain ways less onerous to get than New Mexico's. Plus, there are clearly instructors who are too willing to encourage people to skirt their State law rather than working to improve it. NM residents need to work to just accept all permits, or go permit-free ala Arizona.

    Until then, I'd suggest that Utah consider either no changes to our law, OR, requiring non-residents applying for a Utah permit to provide either a copy of their home State permit or an affidavit that their State does not provide shall issue permits. Those living in shall issue States really should get a home State permit first and then get a Utah permit just to avoid this problem.

    Charles


    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.

  13. #13
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    The problem is Utah's permit is in certain ways less onerous to get than New Mexico's.
    Why can't the problem be that New Mexico's Permit is tougher to obtain than ours? :P

    I imagine that this problem is similar to Nevada's. Rather than a legislature making the decision on which permits to recognize, such as the case is here in Utah, that a small group of law enforcement officials decided that our standards did not quite mesh with theirs.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Kevin Jensen wrote:
    Why can't the problem be that New Mexico's Permit is tougher to obtain than ours? :P

    I imagine that this problem is similar to Nevada's. Rather than a legislature making the decision on which permits to recognize, such as the case is here in Utah, that a small group of law enforcement officials decided that our standards did not quite mesh with theirs.
    Good point about the real problem. Of course on that front, the real problem is that permits are needed in the first place. I sure don't have a permit to attend church, read a newspaper, or to demand a lawyer if I am questioned by police.

    Not much I can do about how other States run things. I can work to make sure Utah's permit strikes that fine balance between being as non-oppressive as any permit can be, while still be "credible" enough to be widely accepted.

    If additional onus is required to keep the permit widely accepted, I'd prefer that onus be born by non-Utah-residents, rather than Utah-residents, all else being equal.

    Charles
    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    ... Speaking only for myself, I am slightly less charitable than some others and if the choice were to clearly be between preserving the value and acceptance of the Utah permit for Utahns, or in keeping the permit as easy as possible for non-Utahns to acquire at the expense of losing recognition, I'd side with protecting the permit. ... Until then, I'd suggest that Utah consider either no changes to our law, OR, requiring non-residents applying for a Utah permit to provide either a copy of their home State permit or an affidavit that their State does not provide shall issue permits. Those living in shall issue States really should get a home State permit first and then get a Utah permit just to avoid this problem.

    Charles

    I absolutely agree. Those who would like to have a Utah permit should be required to get a permit from their own state first or show that their state does not provide shall issue permits. Is there any negative you could see that could come from pushing for this in order to preserve the recognition of the Utah permit?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    Until then, I'd suggest that Utah consider either no changes to our law, OR, requiring non-residents applying for a Utah permit to provide either a copy of their home State permit or an affidavit that their State does not provide shall issue permits. Those living in shall issue States really should get a home State permit first and then get a Utah permit just to avoid this problem.
    I like it. I don't think an affidavit is required, though. The set of may-issue and no-issue states is well-known.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    I like it. I don't think an affidavit is required, though. The set of may-issue and no-issue states is well-known.
    Agreed. We could just have a check box on the form that you live in a non-shall-issue State. BCI can easily keep the list of which States are which.

    Charles
    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.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Cruces, NM
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    New Mexico updates -- Actually, since 2007, one can conceal carry into an establishment that sells liquor for consumption off-premises. (One may not OPEN carry into an establishment selling liquor for off-premises consumption. I never thought open carrying into a liquor store was all that bright in the first place, but that's just me.)

    Effective July 1 of this year, one can conceal carry into a restaurant that serves liquor and derives at least 60% of its revenue from food sales. Things are slowly improving.

    Think Utah licensing got a might loose in the eyes of those administering the New Mexico program. Of course, this meant that NM residents were sending their $$ to Utah, rather than taking the more stringent NM course. States hate to lose revenue. I would think they would have the decency to honor Utah permits for Utah residents, but apparently not.

  19. #19
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    I believe this has nothing to do with revenue, but has everything to do with gun control.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Kevin Jensen wrote:
    I believe this has nothing to do with revenue, but has everything to do with gun control.
    I think it is a little of both. Word is that a new head of NM DPS is hostile to concealed carry, whereas his predecessor was supportive of it. If true, that is clearly gun control.

    However, we are also hearing that NM permit instructors are upset at other instructors pitching the less expensive Utah permit and "stealing" their students who would otherwise have paid for the NM permit training. If true, that is clearly a revenue issue, though admitedly less on the goverment side than on the private sector side. I do suspect that if true, someone in government also figured that selling fewer NM permits was costing the State some money as well.

    Just as we can and do change laws and policies to advance RKBA, we have to remember that the other side can sometimes change laws and policies to attack RKBA. Bearing that in mind, there are times to push the limits of the law and there are times to stay well within the lines, so to speak. We have chosen to convince the Utah legislature to recognize permits issued throughout the US. I kind of cringe every time I see someone publicly encouragnig someone who--usually do to age--cannot get a Utah permit to go geta Maine permit instead. Doubly so if that person intends to use the Maine permit for OCing.

    No doubt or argument this is 100% legal today. But I do have some concerns it could lead to calls to make our laws more restrictive if it were to become at all widespread. "What good is a right/privilege if it isn't exercised?" some may ask. My answer is simple. It is of great benefit to those who travel through our State using such permits. It may be of great benefit to a few who really need or want to carry, but can do so discretely for a couple of years--and probably never have to produce a permit in that time--rather than advertising that they are carrying a gun at 18.

    Ditto when someone chooses to routinely CC into a postedd church--and doubly so if they advertise (however obliquely) that they do so--because the penalty is "just" an infraction. That penalty could be raised and if the right entities were pushing to do so, we might find it pretty tough to fight it. That would really hurt the guys who carry regularly and on rare ocassion honestly forget to disarm before running into a church on a weeknight. Ditto the gal who really needs to carry 24/7.

    Bottom line, at the end of the day, our RKBA is subject to political realities and we need to remember that. We need to pick our battles wisely and then be bold. But there are areas where we need not to pick battles (at least not yet).

    Charles
    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.

  21. #21
    Regular Member redreed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Bristow, VA, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    I would like to hear your opinions on the following changes I would recommend to the Utah permit:

    Utah CCW permits issued to non-Utah residents are valid only while in the state of Utah.

    Utah should provide an option to qualify in a particular weapon and have that stamped onto your licence, or on a separate qualification card for a small additional fee. This option would allow the Utah permit to be recognized by states with more stringent requirements. It would not be required in order to carry that weapon in Utah.

    I also think it is a shame for states like Arizona and NM to deny Utah permits based on not meeting their training requirements. Anytime you compare two states training requirements, you are going to have one state more stringent than the other. Therefore, a universal reciprocity type of situation would be impossible. I could understand it for non-Utah residents, but I do not agree with doing it to Utah resident permit holders. Whatever happend to the idea of the "United" states?



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    redreed wrote:
    Utah CCW permits issued to non-Utah residents are valid only while in the state of Utah.
    Utah doesn't get to tell other states that they may not honor Utah permits. Each state decides what it will and won't accept.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Rottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somewhere out there
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    redreed wrote:
    Utah should provide an option to qualify in a particular weapon and have that stamped onto your licence, or on a separate qualification card for a small additional fee. This option would allow the Utah permit to be recognized by states with more stringent requirements. It would not be required in order to carry that weapon in Utah.

    I also think it is a shame for states like Arizona and NM to deny Utah permits based on not meeting their training requirements. Anytime you compare two states training requirements, you are going to have one state more stringent than the other. Therefore, a universal reciprocity type of situation would be impossible. I could understand it for non-Utah residents, but I do not agree with doing it to Utah resident permit holders. Whatever happend to the idea of the "United" states?

    redreed Swilden is right about your first suggestion. As to your suggestion about qualifying with a particualr type of weapon I am opposed. I do think that shooting as part of a ccw class is prudent, however we should not be limited as to the types of guns we can carry based upon some arbitrary qualification. If I want to carry a revolver one day concealed and then a semi auto the next day it is my choice and I would carry each under very different circumstances.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    There are two approaches to this problem and the first and preferredone isn't going to fly for a while. That is doing just like AZ and not require permits at all. This is the goal but is going to be hard for the other 47 states to join that movement. Right now we should work to push this along but the all or nothing idea is not going to get us where we want to be and going to wind up with nothing taking that stance.

    The second option as much as everyone hates it is the permit option. Lots of people like to push the FL and UT permits over any others. As some have pointed out some instructors in NM have told their students just get the UT permit and don't worry about the NM one. This is causing a backlash seemingly all over the place. States are complaining that residents of that state are ignoring their "requirements" and just going to some state where the process is easier and less stringent. SC along with a few other states will not honor a non-resident permit. Some states say that if you are a resident of that state you must have a permit from that state. I believe that FL is such a state that if you are a FL resident then the only permit you can use is a FL permit. I really don't have any objections to that requirement.

    There was a situation that an 18 year-old resident of NC could not get a NC permit as the minimum age is 21. However this person figured out a way to get permits from two other states and then it was legal for him to CC in NC. As I understand and he posted that he checked with all necessary authorities that indeed it was legal.

    So when we start finding way to get around certain laws and intents of the legislatures that made the laws then we need to start looking how much of a backlash this is going to cause. Instructors pushing students to get a UT permit rather than one from their own state, instructors certifying students where neither the instructor nor student have ever even been to UT and never plan to go there are all going to start causing the lawmakers to look at the laws they passed.

    You can take option one that no permit should be required and fight for that or work within the system and make sure that what you are doing isn't going to raise any red flags. If we all start walking around with a black powder navy colt pistol in our hands to point out that it is legal it may not stay legal for long. Just be careful what you wish for as you just may get it.

  25. #25
    Regular Member redreed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Bristow, VA, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    That is the reason I made the two earlier sugggestions.

    If utah made it so thet Utah NON-resident permits were only valid in Utah, it would prevent people from using them to circumvent their own state laws. If that were the case, then states like New Mexico and Nevada might go back to honoring Utah resident permits. After all, the real reason appears more of a revenue issue, plus their desire for their own citizens to acquire permits that meet their ownstandards. Being able to sidestep their requirements is not right. If their citizens do not like their requirements, then they should fight to get the laws changed instead of going around them.That, of course, would benefit all.This would be step one.

    Step two would be to permit those Utah residents WHO WISH TO DO SO to get get a qualification card for certain weapons they carry so that when they travel to other states that require certification, they can carry their weapons with them. That would encourage the other states to go back to recognizing Utah permit holders who have certifications instead of just saying "We dont recognie ANY Utah permits. They could say instead that "We recognized Utah permits if they have a certification card for the weapon they are carrying"

    Now mind you, I wish to EMPHASIZE, that having a certification card would NOT be required for Utah carry. It would simply be an option for those who want to carry in states that might otherwise not recognize Utah permit holders.

    I understand the earlier response that stated that Utah does not get to decide which states will honor their permits, and Ia agree with that statement. But taking these steps would go a long way towards restoring confidence in the Utah CCW permit as well as stopping "retaliatory" rules saying that Utah permits are no longer recognized.

    I alsoread another suggestion saying that Utah permits should not be issued to non-residents unless they first had a permit from their own state. That would also be OK, except that there are a lot of states that you cannot get a permit. My first suggestion would have the result that they could still come to Utah and carry, but they could not use a Utah permit to circumvent their own laws, since a non-resident permit would be valid only in Utah

    To summarize, Utah resident permits would be valid in any state with reciprocity.

    Utah resident permit holders would not have to be certified to carry in Utah or any other reciprocity state that does not demand it.

    Non-resident permits would be valid only in Utah

    Other states with more stringent traing rewuirements might be encouraged to accept Utah permits again if we could get optional weapon certification cards. That would permit them to say "Utah permits are valid in our state provided that they hold a certification card for the weapon they are carrying".

    Anyhow, this was my thinking, but I wanted to calrify it, as well as explaining my rationale.


    Personally, I would like to even go one step further and say that no permit whatsoever is required to carry open or concealed in Utah. However, we would still need to offer a permit AS AN OPTION with the limitations and enhancements I recommended. That would make it so that Utah residents would be able to carry out of state (You know, in tall those otherstates that scored Bradypoints).

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
  •