This is what P4P and the NRA brings ya!

It would appear that I need a flame suit for this thread. I'll remember one next time I post in this subforum on OCDO.

In many states, a nonresident permit (in some cases any permit) from another state is not recognized.

Click to expand...

In some states that is the case, yes.

Furthermore, in certain other states (which unsurprisingly also fall into the first category) folks have a very hard time getting a permit at all.

Click to expand...

And in those states, the Utah bill (which passed unanimously I might add), exempts them from getting a permit in their home state before applying to Utah.

See, for example, myself. While I am able to establish residency at will in either Virginia or California, as a practical matter I must go with the state from which I have my driver's license, which is necessarily California while I am in school. As, therefore, a "San Francisco resident" in the context of applying for a concealed weapons permit in either state, I am unable to get such a permit, since the City (illegally) won't issue them.

Click to expand...

Read above in that the Utah bill de facto exempts those living in may issue states.

(Not to mention that I'm already quite a bit more knowledgeable in California (and Virginia) law than any C2I () class might hope to render its students.)

Click to expand...

I think we all know that the vast majority of gun owners are not well informed in regarding to open and concealed carry. The folks here on OCDO have vastly more knowledge.

Now, what the hell does Utah accomplish by making me get a permit here first? Do you think I'm unqualified due to my place of residence?

And what is the point of making sure I "know the laws of my own state" for a permit which isn't even valid in my own state? Perhaps Utah should also start requiring training in Pakistani carry laws (only for out of state carriers, of course), since we're so concerned with places totally unrelated to where the permit will be used?

Click to expand...

Some states have very lax CCW laws, others have very strict CCW laws. A CCW class, at the very least, goes over some of the laws relating to CCW in the state that you currently live. That is why people who live in a shall issue state need to get a permit in their state to carry. If they want to apply for other non-resident permits to expand reciprocity after that, then by all means.

Your crack about "Pakistani" is way off. Utah should only train people in Utah laws. States in which residents live train them on the respective laws. This is why they should not be getting a Utah permit to carry in the state which they live.

since9 said:

By "first" you imply there's a "second." What's "second?"

Click to expand...

Second would be a non-resident permit; which in this case, would be from Utah.

Oh, joy. So I have to pay twice as much if I want to carry into a neighboring state. That's not terribly bright.

Click to expand...

/Sarcasm No, that is why they established reciprocity long ago. /Sarcasm

Please do! You're making a wonderful case for the national reciprocity bill.

Click to expand...

Yes, we all want the criminals and various thugs that are prohibited from carrying in Texas, to carry elsewhere under some other CCW permit, like Utah. You're making an excellent case for national reciprocity as well.

since9 said:

Nope. Not a one. Thundar, in post #6, hit the nail on the head as to why this bill should die, and Constitutional Carry should be incorporated into every State's Constitution.

Click to expand...

"Should." Until then......

Suggest you all read through some of these related threads in the Utah and Virginia forums.

Basically, Utah is caving to the whining of other states like Texas, who are threatening to rescind reciprocity for various reasons. It's all about the money, which is not surprising, but is quite disturbing when you think about it. Texas is trying to protect their CHP revenue stream.

So because of this, residents of such states as Virginia, who have real-world legitimate concerns for not getting a resident CHP first, are left out to dry.

I do understand Utah trying to maintain the best value of their permit for their own residents first, but there are several ways they could have fixed this without impacting other states that had no beef with them.

For those who are not aware of the issue, Virginia currently treats CHP application information as a public record. So anyone who is seeking a CHP for protection from a domestic violence situation must put on record for anyone to see, their current address and other personal information. This policy also gives would-be criminals a nice convenient list of houses with guns that they can scope out and rob.

We would very much like to "fix" this problem in Virginia, but much like liberal legislators in other news headlines these days, the Virginia Senate has chosen to openly and flagrantly violate their own rules to illegally kill bills that would otherwise pass.

When your lawmakers won't follow their own laws, society starts down the road of anarchy... and our only hope is to vote these scoundrels out and start over again.

TFred

Thundar said:

Concealed Carry Instruction Industry = C2I2
Perks for Permittees = P4P

This is not a surprise.

C2I2 always supports P4P, as this is jobs preservation. The NRA is the largest C2I2 organization in the nation. Many states have "NRA certified instructor" written into their laws as the only one that can provide the required instruction.

C2I2 is a bacterial infection that feeds off of P4P. Constitutional Carry is the antibiotic.

Click to expand...

I think you are being pretty unfair to the instructors. This idea that all permit instructors are out to screw you over with RTKBA is unfairly prejudicial.

What are you doing to help people and save lives? (trolling on Internet forums and making enemies doesn't count)

I have several instructor friends in Arizona who lost half their business, but I would support the same changes in NM if it came up. Sure I'd lose some business, but people still need training, especially those who didn't grow up around guns.

Bring 'constitutional carry' on. I look forward to helping new shooters gain the knowledge, skills and attitude necessary to defend themselves without a piece of plastic in their wallets. I studied marketing in college and worked several marketing jobs before I became an instructor. I'm confident my business will survive when the CHL aspect of it goes away at some point in the future. I am an antibiotic-resistant strain of firearms instructor.

I do CHL courses today because with today's laws, that's what it takes to carry. Am I evil and anti-RTKBA because I do this?

Again, what great thing are you doing to help people that gives you the right to judge me thus?

The thing I dislike is that this effectively kills the Utah CCW license for military members. Given how much military members move around it can be VERY hard to get the license from their "home" state; and so this class was an easy way for them to carry at most bases they can go to.

For me I happen to have a UT driver's license and as such they issued me a resident license (military member that's no longer a resident, but my UT DL is good until I get out and apparently the state on your DL is how they check which state you're a resident of), but I know a ton of military members who got their license prior to the law even being brought up that this is going to affect. And while their license will be good for 5 years, they won't be able to renew unless they have a UT DL.

Aknazer said:

The thing I dislike is that this effectively kills the Utah CCW license for military members. Given how much military members move around it can be VERY hard to get the license from their "home" state; and so this class was an easy way for them to carry at most bases they can go to.

For me I happen to have a UT driver's license and as such they issued me a resident license (military member that's no longer a resident, but my UT DL is good until I get out and apparently the state on your DL is how they check which state you're a resident of), but I know a ton of military members who got their license prior to the law even being brought up that this is going to affect. And while their license will be good for 5 years, they won't be able to renew unless they have a UT DL.

Click to expand...

UT isn't the only girl in town. AZ and FL both accept NRA courses as proof of training and are accepted by about the same number of states.

Wow, I don't know how PA has survived all these years with the no training requirement, shouldn't PA be bathed in blood from LTCF holders?

Without a FL lisc, I wouldn't be able to carry in PA, not even OC ( unless OCing for hunting/trapping). A Utah lisc does the same as the FL lisc. But can I get a MD lisc? LOL HA HA HA HA!

Training requirements can = $$ to get a lisc to carry. This is not fair to the poor folks and the elderly on short fixed incomes. A good gun already costs enough ( unless you have no problems with Hi-points). It already costs enough to buy ammo, and defensive hollowpoints even more. Yes, I feel that some sort of training is good, but requiring a class that may cost 150.00 and then the carry lisc itself may cost another 150.00? Isn't that what it is in TX? And how are Texans who can't get a TX lisc getting a Utah lisc? Does TX have some stupid "charactor clause" like in PA, and act like Philly does? I thought Utah had a charactor clause- so what's the deal here?

But hey- how about a compromise? Unlisc'd open carry in all states, with the only restrictions being courthouses, jails, and the secure part of airports. No more legal weight "no guns" signs either ( like in PA, where if a business owner doesn't want you carrying and you won't leave, you can get trespassed). So, if you can't afford the classes and concealed lisc- then just OC!

The cost of the class just depends on where you're at and the instructor. My dad charges $50 (includes picture, fingerprints, and class) but requires you to mail in the paperwork and pay the $62.50 to the state, while a lot of the instructors he knew would charge $150 but they would also mail it in for you. Here in Oklahoma you're looking at about $100 for class (some people like the military qualify for a waiver and don't have to take the class), fingerprints, and pictures followed by $100 to the state for a 5year license or $200 for 10 years.

And then there's renewal fees which vary between states.

PracticalTactical said:

I think you are being pretty unfair to the instructors. This idea that all permit instructors are out to screw you over with RTKBA is unfairly prejudicial.

What are you doing to help people and save lives? (trolling on Internet forums and making enemies doesn't count)

I have several instructor friends in Arizona who lost half their business, but I would support the same changes in NM if it came up. Sure I'd lose some business, but people still need training, especially those who didn't grow up around guns.

Bring 'constitutional carry' on. I look forward to helping new shooters gain the knowledge, skills and attitude necessary to defend themselves without a piece of plastic in their wallets. I studied marketing in college and worked several marketing jobs before I became an instructor. I'm confident my business will survive when the CHL aspect of it goes away at some point in the future. I am an antibiotic-resistant strain of firearms instructor.

I do CHL courses today because with today's laws, that's what it takes to carry. Am I evil and anti-RTKBA because I do this?

Again, what great thing are you doing to help people that gives you the right to judge me thus?

Click to expand...

I am not being unfair, I am saying the emperor has no clothes. I have never blamed any individual instructor. I have blamed the industry. In seeking to promote priveledges before rights, the right is harmed.

Seek to change the law so that no form of bearing arms requires a government permission slip. Seeking more priveledges for those who have paid for a permission slip does not protect, help or enhance the right.

Thundar said:

I am not being unfair, I am saying the emperor has no clothes. I have never blamed any individual instructor. I have blamed the industry. In seeking to promote priveledges before rights, the right is harmed.

Seek to change the law so that no form of bearing arms requires a government permission slip. Seeking more priveledges for those who have paid for a permission slip does not protect, help or enhance the right.

Click to expand...

I agree but I don't think it's the industry as much as state governments who are to blame.


Shameless Sig Plug: Practical Tactical Training - The Best CHL class value in Southern New Mexico. PM me for details or call 575-520-8888

Ryan45cal said:

Second would be a non-resident permit; which in this case, would be from Utah.

Click to expand...

And at what additional cost? I can currently CC in more than two-dozen other states due to reciprocity. Utah wants me to obtain a second, non-resident permit for the privalage of the same reciprocity I want today? At what additional cost? At what exhorbitant cost for all 20+ states?

No thanks.

/Sarcasm No, that is why they established reciprocity long ago. /Sarcasm

Click to expand...

Non-resident permits are NOT reciprocity. They're antithetical to reciprocity. Reciprocity is recognizing and honoring permits originating from a person's state of residence. This "second permit" approach is not recognizing permits from a person's state of resident, except as a prelimary step to each state granting their own fee-based permits, probably with additional (almost certainly duplicate) requirements of one's originally issuing state.

It's a red-tape nightmare, the wind of which is probably what's feeding the national reciprocity bill.

Yes, we all want the criminals and various thugs that are prohibited from carrying in Texas, to carry elsewhere under some other CCW permit, like Utah. You're making an excellent case for national reciprocity as well.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. Here's the idea behind national reciprocity:

1. A person must first obtain a CHP/CCW permit from their offical and permanent state of residence. If they qualify for dual or multiple residency, they can choose to obtain a permit in either state.

2. Once having obtained a CHP/CCW permit from their official and permanent state of residence, that permit is valid in ALL states, subject to the CHP/CCW laws in each state in which they might carry.

3. People woud not be able to obtain a permit in the state of their choice; only in the state of their residence. If they change residence to attempt to circumvent this, then as soon as they change residence, by most state laws the CHP/CWP is null and void anyway, and cross-residence attempts would be detectable by the same nation-wide, all-50 state database currently in place.

3. NO state shall require ANY additional permit, fees, or other hoops through which we citizens must jump to exercise our 2A rights in CC mode.

I object to Utah's bill's requirement for a second permit, and in all liklihood, qualifications, fees, etc. That's money-making bureacracy, and I don't like paying unnecessary fees to "secure" Constitutional rights which shouldn't a thin red dime in the first place. Furthermore, if passed, the other states with whom I currently enjoy FREE reciprocity will likely implement fee-based "second" permits of their own.

Alternatively we can simply support a national, unequivocal and uninfringed implementation of our Second Amendment... :0

since9 said:

And at what additional cost? I can currently CC in more than two-dozen other states due to reciprocity. Utah wants me to obtain a second, non-resident permit for the privilege of the same reciprocity I want today? At what additional cost? At what exorbitant cost for all 20+ states?

No thanks.

Click to expand...

Too bad you are in CO. Mine has reciprocity with 37 states. It should be at least 48 and Ideally 50. Best of all would be not required to have a License at all.

:lol:

Folks, national reciprocity mandated by the federal government is a horrible idea. Please see the thread dedicated to that subject to see the arguments both for and against the bill.

I hope we don't drag that debate into this topic. It already has a thread; I suggest it be debated there, not here.

So even though Utah recognizes Missouri's permit ( Missouri is accepted in 38 states ) I would still have to get a non resident permit to carry there? If that is the case then I'm marking Utah off my trip this summer I was taking there with my buddy.

Tony4310 said:

So even though Utah recognizes Missouri's permit ( Missouri is accepted in 38 states ) I would still have to get a non resident permit to carry there? If that is the case then I'm marking Utah off my trip this summer I was taking there with my buddy.

Click to expand...

To better explain, say I was an Oklahoma citizen. Prior to this new law I could have gotten the Utah permit w/o getting the Oklahoma permit. With the new law I would have to have the Oklahoma permit prior to getting the Utah one. This doesn't matter for some places that are recognized in as many or more places than Utah, but it does affect people whose state has less reciprocity than the Utah license (or where it's easier/cheaper to get the Utah one). I'm not sure, but I believe it also requires Utah instructors to return to Utah to renew their license, which will also reduce the number of licenses as fewer out-of-state instructors will go through this to keep teaching the class.

As for your question about your license, no you wouldn't. The law only affects people who want to get a Utah license and has nothing to do with the state's reciprocity.

eye95 said:

Folks, national reciprocity mandated by the federal government is a horrible idea. Please see the thread dedicated to that subject to see the arguments both for and against the bill.

I hope we don't drag that debate into this topic. It already has a thread; I suggest it be debated there, not here.

Click to expand...

You hit the bullseye - eye 95.

Do you have a link to the other thread?