Changes in NV reciprocity!!

[rtroha]

Effective, July 1, Nevada will no longer recognize Right-to-Carry permits from Utah or Florida. They have, however, added Ohio and West Virginia as recognized states.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=5001

 

[RDak]

As to the driver's licenses. Didn't all of you have to pass a driving test to get a license?

We do here in Michigan. Separate ones for cars and motorcycles also.

Are there States who grant driver's licenses to people without testing their driving skills in the first place??!!

ETA: So I'm thinkin' the driver's license argument might just be a red herring arguing against Nevada's reciprocity denial to Utah permits. (The Florida denial is just plain stupid though IMHO.)

 

[green-grizzly]

As far as equating driving and carrying concealed, is there a constutitonal right to drive? Is the constitutional right to defend yourself limited to the ability to defend yourself with accurate fire only?

If so, no cops should be able to carry guns. Their accuracy in defensive shootings is generally atrocious.

Most people drive every day. Most people who carry concealed will never use their weapon. For the very small number who do, the vast majority of defensive firearm uses involve just showing the weapon with no shots being fired. Is Nevada going to test whether you waive your gun around properly?

Does a simple range test accurately measure the ability of a person to deploy and fire a firearm defensively? I doubt it. Is there any scientifice evidence showing such a relation?

Going back to the analogy with the test drive, it is like believing that passing driver's ed qualifies you for NASCAR. A little target practice at the range does nothing to prepare you for defensive shooting.

Firearm safety and the rules for defensive use of a firearm can be tought without actually shooting the gun.

I think Utah dispensed with a shooting test for good reason, and it makes me suspicous Nevada is doing this just to "keep guns off the street."

But I suppose it is up to Nevada to make their own rules. The only thing Utahns should do about it is to stay out of Nevada.

 

[Wile E Coyote]

Green-Giz...Let's not forget how many non-residents have Utah permits as well. It's gonna affect more than just NV and UT residents.

 

[Erich]

Drat. And I am going to NV in a couple of weeks and was planning on carrying (as usual) under my UT and FL licenses. Good looking-out, folks, but drat.

 

[CoRoMo]

I assume at some point, Colorado will do this type of blue state thing and require range time. I just hope the current permit holders get grandfathered in because I don't want to plop down another stack of C-notes for a class.

Anyone from a state where the change was made while you had a permit? How'd that change affect your permit? Renewal?

 

[Quiet]

NV DPS was changed. UT & FL removed and WV & OH added.

Utah DPS changed NV to a state that does not recognize UT permits.

FL DACS removed NV from list of states that have reciprocity with FL.

Also on the FL website.

This list was last updated on July 1, 2009, when the State of Nevada was removed from the reciprocity list. Authorities in Nevada notified the Division of Licensing that as of that date, Nevada would no longer honor Florida concealed weapon licenses. Therefore, in accordance with the reciprocity provision set forth in section 790.015, Florida Statutes, Florida could no longer honor concealed weapon licenses issued by the State of Nevada.

 

[HIcarry]

Quote:
wait, wait, WAIT, Nevada is still an open carry state, so who cares! Maybe I will go to Lake Mead after all!

You can't carry at Lake Mead NRA cause it's a National Park Service managed site until 2010 when the new regs go into effect. And then you can only carry concealed.

Why would you be restricted to concealed carry after the new regulations go into effect in 2010? The new regulations specifically state that the firearms laws in the parks will mirror the laws of the state it is located in. So, if you can open carry in the state, you can open carry in the park.

 

[freewheeling]

As for me, Nevada reciprocity was one of the major reasons I got the Utah permit, since NV doesn't have reciprocity with VA. But combining a VA and a UT permit would render NV's excuse invalid. It seems to me that one would be able to make a credible argument that if you have two permits, one that requires live fire, as well as the Utah non-resident permit, you ought to be able to carry concealed in Nevada. In other words the argument about combining multiple permits to meet a given state's stricter requirements might be a useful line of public debate. Such an "aggregated training" argument might be a useful way to counter the anti-ccw advocates who think they've found an Achilles heal with this "substantially similar" concept.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It seems to me that one would be able to make a credible argument that if you have two permits, one that requires live fire, as well as the Utah non-resident permit, you ought to be able to carry concealed in Nevada....

One would think. But I guess the powers that be don't see it that way. And that is why I'm presently sitting in a hotel room in Sparks, Nevada so that I can take a Nevada CCW class tomorrow. And I'll be staying over so I can swing by the Washoe County Sheriff on Monday to apply.

 

[Bailey Guns]

Well...really...it's not unreasonable for Nevada to require a CCW holder to have shown they can operate a Firearm...or, with this, to decline to recognise permits issued by States who do not require an applicant to 'qualify', by showing they can operate a firearm...


It should not be a Hardship for Utah to have an applicant 'qualify' by actually firing an Arm...and, if they would, then 'end-of-reciprocity-problem'...

Ahh, yes. Elitism at it's finest. "Sorry, YOU don't qualify."

This has been hashed and rehashed. The believers of the "you must actually shoot" in order to get a permit are pretty hard-pressed to ever find proof this is an actual, rather than a perceived, problem. Many, many shall-issue states require nothing more than a classroom lecture and I sure don't see it as a being a problem. 2 states require nothing more than legally being allowed to own a gun. Don't hear of any problems there, either.

This whole "you must qualify" thing is a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Ahh, yes. Elitism at it's finest. ...

Ahh, yes. The typical response of the "Training? We ain't go no training; We don't need no stinkin' training" crowd. Anyway, your not liking it isn't going to change it. And if you want to change it, go for it.

In any case, I have no problem with a state expecting me to demonstrate that I can manage a gun, and that I have some knowledge of the applicable law, before I go about in public with a loaded gun on my person. And instead of grousing about it, I took care of business. I took the class today and qualified, and will be going to the sheriff on Monday to submit my application. It's something of a nuisance, but I'm getting a nice little Reno vacation out of the exercise.