# NM Won't Recognize Utah Concealed Carry Licenses



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

An interesting read. So what is the difference in the requirements? Take it there isn't any standardization of requirements.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=10525481


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The way Utah gives permits out like candy canes at Christmas, New Mexico certainly won't be the last state do do this. There is a reason Utah give out more permits than any other state, AND why so many people from other states get Utah permits.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

I saw this coming a long time ago. Utah had a high level of state reciprocity and because of that it had a lot of appeal to out of state applicants. Utah doing what they do best ignored the problem and continued to allow a large number of out of state permits, this both taxed the system and delaying Utah applications to the point of ridiculous. 

As soon as the states giving the Utah license reciprocity learned that Utah was the concealed carry clearing house of the US, their incentive to recognize Utah permits diminished.


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

I dont know how Utah could feel their training is good. I personally feel everyone should have to shoot. When I took my course there was a lady that went up to demonstrate that she knew how to load a pistol. She attempted to put the bullets in the mag backwords. She looked amazed that it wouldnt work. She had no clue how to load a revolver either. The instructor showed her one time and signed her application. I believe you will see other states stop honoring our permit also. The instructors here do it for the extra cash. It dont matter if you can shoot a firearm or not. They will give you the permit.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

reb8600 said:


> It dont matter if you can shoot a firearm or not. They will give you the permit.


Does the second amendment require a specific level of firearm proficiency before your constitutional rights are honored?


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

* "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

* "The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

hyperduc said:


> reb8600 said:
> 
> 
> > It dont matter if you can shoot a firearm or not. They will give you the permit.
> ...


Does the second amendment have anything to do with Utahs training and permit requirements? That is the discussion here not the second amendment and its meaning. Does the second amendment make it any safer for someone that cant handle a gun to carry it concealed? I believe the instructors of the Utah course are supposed to make sure someone can safely handle a firearm. Isnt that course a firearms training? I guess you think we should do away with the hunters safety training also? There isnt anything in the second amendment about being able to safely handle a firearm to hunt either. There is nothing in there about being able to shoot and hit something so we should just give everyone a hunting license right? Does the second amendent say anything about criminals and the mentally ill not having firearms. Maybe we should arm all of them also. The second amendment serves as a good base for gun ownership but it does not cover all aspects of it.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

I read some interesting articles on this subject. One that I thought was interesting suggested it was based on costs. The cost for a permit in NM was around $100 and the cost for a Utah permit was around $35. NM instructors where teaching the class and then sending their students to get a Utah Permit. The other caveat that Utah's CCW where accepted in a large number of other states.

While I disagree with NM and NV removing Utahs permits, I firmly beleive that Utah should remove NM and NV permits from the utah accepted list.

The simple fact is most have a problem with Utah not having a shooting test. Even though there is not much evidence that this is even a problem. Does going out and shooting one time going to make you a better CCW holder? I think this is just another make some people "feel good" option.


----------



## killdeer (Dec 9, 2009)

I don't know about a"feel good option" but I would like a feel safe option. Shooting once may not make a lot of difference. I would prefer a more comprehensive education approach. In the "60s we needed bodies for the count in Viet Nam. The Marines reduced the time required in "boot camp" the range requirement stayed the same. I was amazed that people who had never touched a weapon could become safe and proficient with weapons in about a week. I realize the military holds a special motivation on participants, but education and training impressed me. I was very experienced and I even learned a thing or two. It might have even helped when I got the CCP. I know my teaching and requirements for my children to hunt helped them.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

killdeer said:


> I don't know about a"feel good option" but I would like a feel safe option. Shooting once may not make a lot of difference. I would prefer a more comprehensive education approach. In the "60s we needed bodies for the count in Viet Nam. The Marines reduced the time required in "boot camp" the range requirement stayed the same. I was amazed that people who had never touched a weapon could become safe and proficient with weapons in about a week. I realize the military holds a special motivation on participants, but education and training impressed me. I was very experienced and I even learned a thing or two. It might have even helped when I got the CCP. I know my teaching and requirements for my children to hunt helped them.


And I guess I don't understand why you feel your safety is in danger. I guess if you could show me something like 20% accident rate or something along this line I would feel that additional training was required. The fact is at this point in time additional training is not required. We just don't have a problem. A couple of guys a year shooting toilets and such are nothing more then people have accidents. You can train till your blue in the face and you will not stop accidents. Right now, this point in time, you have given no real good reason to require more training.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

reb8600 said:


> Does the second amendment have anything to do with Utahs training and permit requirements? That is the discussion here not the second amendment and its meaning. Does the second amendment make it any safer for someone that cant handle a gun to carry it concealed?


Any requirement to carry any gun anywhere in the United States in an infringement on second amendment rights, Utah's concealed carry permits allow people to do what they could already legally do so skill should have nothing to do with a persons right to handle a gun.

If your really that concerned about being shot by a little old lady who can barely load a gun then don't mess with her.


----------



## killdeer (Dec 9, 2009)

Not necessarily trying to justify or give reasons for training. My observation is that it changes behavior, mostly for the good. I never fear for my safety. The kids and I are armed to the teeth, not that that provides any safety. I have seen my share of tragedy, "accidents" that should have been avoided. I do believe that education and training provide (can provide) a level of competence and responsibility. Safe behavior is learned. Jefferson had it right when he said in essence that the ignorant and uneducated will not be able to maintain freedom. All the rights on the books don't mean much without responsibility to self and others.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

Well said killdeer !!

Especially this_....* All the rights on the books don't mean much without responsibility to self and others.*_


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

hyperduc said:


> Any requirement to carry any gun anywhere in the United States in an infringement on second amendment rights, Utah's concealed carry permits allow people to do what they could already legally do so skill should have nothing to do with a persons right to handle a gun.


A-FREAKING-MEN!



killdeer said:


> Jefferson had it right when he said in essence that the ignorant and uneducated will not be able to maintain freedom. All the rights on the books don't mean much without responsibility to self and others.


Jefferson was correct, but I am not sure what that has to do with having stricter carry REGULATIONS. Teaching is one thing, MANDATING is another. I am all for courses being OFFERED to the public to assist them on being more proficient with firearms, but I am 100% against forcing ADULTS to be better educated on ANY subject. That is the SOP of North Korea, not the SOP of a 'free' nation.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

killdeer said:


> Not necessarily trying to justify or give reasons for training. My observation is that it changes behavior, mostly for the good. I never fear for my safety. The kids and I are armed to the teeth, not that that provides any safety. I have seen my share of tragedy, "accidents" that should have been avoided. I do believe that education and training provide (can provide) a level of competence and responsibility. Safe behavior is learned. Jefferson had it right when he said in essence that the ignorant and uneducated will not be able to maintain freedom. All the rights on the books don't mean much without *responsibility to self and others*.


I have underlined the most important part of the quote from Jefferson.

I as an individual do not need any more forced hand holding. As I stated earlier, as of right now there appears not to be an issue with others (as far as Accidents). So forcing others to do and pay more does what? It may or may not change their competence or how they feel about responsibility to others. If they shoot for even a week and then not shoot for a whole year, I'm sorry you have done very little. Being taught to be competent and to be responsible starts at a very young age.


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

reb8600 said:


> Does the second amendent say anything about criminals and the mentally ill not having firearms. Maybe we should arm all of them also.


Not to worry, most criminals are well armed and we didn't have to arm them, they took the initiative and did it themselves. I'm not sure the training they received meets your high standards but it appears they are able to get by. I am a little surprised they didn't get your permission first.


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

DBCooper said:


> Not to worry, most criminals are well armed and we didn't have to arm them, they took the initiative and did it themselves. I'm not sure the training they received meets your high standards but it appears they are able to get by. I am a little surprised they didn't get your permission first.


Since you seem to think you know so much about me, why dont you tell me about my high standards or are you throwing comments out that you know nothing about. I am not sure where you came up with the comments about getting my permission for anything. Do you know anything about me? You want to bring up about criminals being able to get by with the training they got. Is that the training that taught them to use firearms for crime? Your right, they got by just fine didnt they. Three meals a day and a free place to live.

I have spent a lot of time on shooting ranges and in the field in the last 35 years to see how careless a lot of people are with firearms. I have been shot at and shot over because of peoples carelessness and stupidity. I know most people dont want to hear it but some of the worst people I have seen or meet are from Utah. Are you one of them that get careless and stupid? It amazes me that people complain because someone wants them to receive some training before doing some things.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

reb8600 said:


> I have spent a lot of time on shooting ranges and in the field in the last 35 years to see how careless a lot of people are with firearms. I have been shot at and shot over because of peoples carelessness and stupidity.
> *So these careless people had how much range time? How much time is required to make stupidity and carelessness go away?*
> I know most people dont want to hear it but some of the worst people I have seen or meet are from Utah.
> *Don't get out much I guess.*
> ...


I'll say it again. Nobody that is pushing for more training has shown any facts or anything for that matter, that shows for that few hours of training, that we CCW permit holders will go from a few mistakes a year to zero mistakes. I hate to break it to some, but there are stupid people in this world and they walk amongst us. If you really want to get people to the range then make it available, and make it fun.


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> I'll say it again. Nobody that is pushing for more training has shown any facts or anything for that matter, that shows for that few hours of training, that we CCW permit holders will go from a few mistakes a year to zero mistakes. I hate to break it to some, but there are stupid people in this world and they walk amongst us. If you really want to get people to the range then make it available, and make it fun.


Maybe training is the wrong word. Maybe certification would be a better word. I do feel that anyone getting a concealed permit should have to shoot and show they can handle a firearm. If you read back to my first post about the lady that couldnt even load the gun and was signed off by the instructor you will see why I feel that way. If she cant load it I would be willing to bet she cant shoot it. Is that someone you would want pulling a firearm with innocent people in the area. I think they need to tighten up a little when it comes to signing someones application. That is why states are starting to not honor our permit. They give them away as long as you pass a background check. Even with hunters safety you have to show you can shoot before they will sign you off. Why should the concealed permit be any different?

You ask if training will make careless and stupid go away. It may help with some of it. Maybe a lot of it because they dont know. If a child or dog is doing something wrong do you just look away or train them that it is wrong so that they know. So yes I believe training would help. You ask how much range time. There are a lot of people that go out right before the hunt each year and that is the only time they shoot. Do you think that is enough? I dont. I have seen people shoot at 50 yds putting 5-10 shots in a 10" circle and then comment "that is good enough for deer hunting". Do you think that is good enough? Maybe a little more shooting time would be good for them.

It amazes me that people dont think that some training could do some good. Put a gun in someones hands that has never shot without some sort of education or training is an accident waiting to happen. Why do people put guns in safes with children around? Could it be because the children dont know how to handle them. Dont you think it is a good idea to train or teach someone to properly handle firearms?



Huntoholic said:


> If you really want to get people to the range then make it available, and make it fun.


There are plenty of ranges available. Some of them even have shoots that people can participate in. So it is available. There is also plenty of public land to shoot on. The opportunities are there for people, they just need to do it.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> reb8600


To me you are mixing things together. Training and education are good. We do need to keep up todate. We need to practise.

Now back to permitting. For the few hours of range time that other states require, there is very minimal returns when it comes to safety. This is based on the fact that there has been very few accidents compared to those holding permits. Hence where is the safety issue. Okay you have had some bad experiences. Requireing permit holders to shoot like what some of these other states have for requirements will get us for the most part nothing, when we are talking about safety. There is no documented problem.

Let me ask this question. Did you report the instructor? It seems to me that the instructor is the person that needs more training. That individual should not have past.

You use the hunters safety shoot as an example. Yes it is required, but I bet you could remove it and safety would not be an issue. Lets looks at it from the otherside. With that training we still have the stupid people doing dumb things.

Do you have the government telling you that before you can have a child you need to take a parenting class or before you own a dog. Both would probably be good ideas. But we don't. So why should I require a class to address a problem that does not exist?

I've got a meeting to go to. I'll get back later.  Thanks for the talk.


----------



## Ryfly (Sep 13, 2007)

It all comes down to the fact that maintaining a free society depends on being moral and responsible. If you own a gun it is your responsibility to learn how to use it and use proper safety. All the laws in the world won't change that, otherwise gun laws would stop crime.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

> Huntoholic wrote:





> Let me ask this question. *Did you report the instructor?* It seems to me that the instructor is the person that needs more training. That individual should not have past.


The instructor has nothing to do with this, there is nothing to pass. It's a "course', with no test, no questions to answer, the only requirement is a background and to show up. 



> You use the hunters safety shoot as an example. Yes it is required, but I bet you could *remove it and safety would not be an issue.* Lets looks at it from the otherside. With that training we still have the stupid people doing dumb things.


The hunters safety not only provides safety, but also teaches responsibility in the use of firearms. This is a good class. One of which I wish anybody shooting a firearm would take, regardless of their age, race or sex. 



> *I've got a meeting to go to.* I'll get back later. Thanks for the talk.


Man, I hope it's a 'safety' meeting !!! :wink:


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

I'm tired of being penalized by the VERY FEW stupid individuals in this country who can't run their own lives.


I pay social security because someone else didn't budget for their retirement.
I pay for socialized government insurance because people would rather maintain their lifestyle than pay for health insurance. 
I pay extra for auto insurance because there are others who don't. 
I have to register all my firearms because there are others who don't use them for legal purposes.
I have to put stupid little stickers on my off road vehicles because others can't grasp the concept of established trails.

Penalize the morons who are irresponsible and stop trying to legislate all of the responsibility out of my life.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

hyperduc said:


> Penalize the morons who are irresponsible and stop trying to legislate all of the responsibility out of my life.


+1


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

hyperduc said:


> I have to register all my firearms because there are others who don't use them for legal purposes.
> I have to put stupid little stickers on my off road vehicles because others can't grasp the concept of established trails.


Firearms in Utah are not registered
The sticker on you off road vehicle shows the registration was paid and has nothing to do with the concept of established trails.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Okay guys...color me STUPID the reason I made this post is this...if I drive cross country and get stopped without a concealed permit from any state...what 'really' would happen? 

If I get stopped the first thing I'd say to the officer is I have a gun and this is where it's at...do I 'really' need to have a CWP??? 

Guess with the work I do there's mostly standardization and consistency. So again help me...If I have gun in the glove box or in a shoulder harness under a jacket...I get pulled over hopefully by a real police officer and I inform the officer...what if anything could be the worst case scenario I'd be faced with??? :? :? :?


----------



## DBCooper (Jun 17, 2008)

reb8600 said:


> Since you seem to think you know so much about me, why dont you tell me about my high standards...Do you know anything about me?


I know a lot about people like you. You've perfected your life to such a degree that you have become bored with living your own life so you imagine it would add a little zest to yours to try to perfect the rest of us. You know, we drink to much soda pop so you want to "regulate" it. We smoke too many cigarettes so you want to "regulate" those. Now I use too much salt so you want to "regulate" that to. Too many people protecting themselves with, I might add, a G-d given right so you need to "regulate" that to. Not a reb8600 right or a governor Hurbert right or a my mommy said so right; A G-d given right! Or for my atheist friends, a natural right. 
But I digress. Sorry!



reb8600 said:


> I am not sure where you came up with the comments about getting my permission for anything.


A bad sense of humor 

Sorry for the high jack; I can't get it out of my system 



k2muskie said:


> I get pulled over hopefully by a real police officer and I inform the officer...what if anything could be the worst case scenario I'd be faced with???


When I took my CC class the instructor(a former cop, for what it's worth) told us if we ever had to defend ourselves with our weapon the consequences will be determined by the district attorney, another human being who has biases and probably ambitions beyond his/her current standing so, it's a crap shoot. Your question I think is the same. If you are going 120 and driving reckless and when you roll your window down pot smoke bellows out like a freight train stack and you have a couple of "home boys" in the back who are awfully jittery and they appear to be hiding stuff under the seat, I think your in deep Sheet. If your traveling 10 miles over with your wife and kids and he/she asks if you have any weapons in the car tonight and you inform them that you have a cc permit and have a weapon on your person and keep your hands on the steering wheel and keep your cool, I would hope you get a warning for speeding and the cc. That's just me though and I'm not a cop.

A few other tidbits, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." and "Mercy can't rob justice." I don't know the law in NM for unauthorized carry so, if I was going to NM with my weapon I would find out what the law is to see if it would be worth the consequences and not take any of our moronic advise.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

reb8600 said:


> Firearms in Utah are not registered The sticker on you off road vehicle shows the registration was paid and has nothing to do with the concept of established trails.


Wow, your all over those two issues.... except.

Firearms in Utah aren't registered by the state, but I don't remember mentioning utah gun registration. What I did say is that I have to register my firearms because some people don't use them for legal purposes, which is not so coincidentally why the federal government passed the 1934 National Firearms Act requiring the registration of all firearms in response to high levels of organized crime.

The little stickers that I was referring to on ATV's are the numbers and alphas that are used by others to identify the offender when someone is reporting illegal activity. These are required by law, in addition to those that prove the vehicles registration is current.

I fell pretty confident in my argument if those are the only two points you could (mistakenly) take issue with.

My whole point in this rant is that every little piece of registration, legislation or taxation is just one more thing that they have taken away from you. Plenty of historical proof to support that assertion.

You seem like a nice guy, and I hope you don't misunderstand this as questioning your intelligence or a personal attack is some other way. I just don't think people spend enough time thinking about everything we loose every time something like this happens, I know this comparison may not be totally relevant but: Germany didn't become Nazi Germany overnight or through a single piece of legislation.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> My whole point in this rant is that every little piece of registration, legislation or taxation is just one more thing that they have taken away from you.


The thing to remember, is that WE are the THEY.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

GaryFish said:


> The thing to remember, is that WE are the THEY.


No one I have voted for currently holds office, and I have been fairly vocal in my opposition So I really don't consider myself part of the WE. Besides THEY think I'm radical because I believe that all we have done with the constitution is screw up a perfectly good document.


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

hyperduc said:


> [
> Wow, your all over those two issues.... except.
> 
> Firearms in Utah aren't registered by the state, but I don't remember mentioning utah gun registration. What I did say is that I have to register my firearms because some people don't use them for legal purposes, which is not so coincidentally why the federal government passed the 1934 National Firearms Act requiring the registration of all firearms in response to high levels of organized crime.
> ...


Firearms bought in Utah are not registered with the state or the federal government. When you purchase one the paper work stays with the store until they go out of business. If you think they are, why dont you explain how you think they are.

The little sticker with numbers and alphas by my understanding was done away with several years ago. I havent had them on mine for 2 years.


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

DBCooper said:


> I know a lot about people like you. You've perfected your life to such a degree that you have become bored with living your own life so you imagine it would add a little zest to yours to try to perfect the rest of us. You know, we drink to much soda pop so you want to "regulate" it. We smoke too many cigarettes so you want to "regulate" those. Now I use too much salt so you want to "regulate" that to. Too many people protecting themselves with, I might add, a G-d given right so you need to "regulate" that to. Not a reb8600 right or a governor Hurbert right or a my mommy said so right; A G-d given right! Or for my atheist friends, a natural right.
> But I digress. Sorry!


You have shown you know nothing about me. You are real quick to judge and classify people who dont meet your standards or beliefs though.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

.45 said:


> The instructor has nothing to do with this, there is nothing to pass. It's a "course', with no test, no questions to answer, the only requirement is a background and to show up.
> *There is a requirement to know how to handle a firearm. The instructor signs off on the coarse. If the instructor does not sign, you don't get a permit. The instructor is recognized by the state. Hence you can report any irregularities to the state.*
> 
> The hunters safety not only provides safety, but also teaches responsibility in the use of firearms. This is a good class. One of which I wish anybody shooting a firearm would take, regardless of their age, race or sex.
> ...


I said in way back in this thread, a shooting requirement in our current system is nothing more then a feel good.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

k2muskie said:


> Okay guys...color me STUPID the reason I made this post is this...if I drive cross country and get stopped without a concealed permit from any state...what 'really' would happen?
> 
> If I get stopped the first thing I'd say to the officer is I have a gun and this is where it's at...do I 'really' need to have a CWP???
> 
> Guess with the work I do there's mostly standardization and consistency. So again help me...If I have gun in the glove box or in a shoulder harness under a jacket...I get pulled over hopefully by a real police officer and I inform the officer...what if anything could be the worst case scenario I'd be faced with??? :? :? :?


Part of the problem is that we are not standardize from state to state.

The laws do differ greatly from state to state. Even with a CCW permit in Nevada the places you can carry are different then in Utah.

When you travel with a firearm you do need to plan ahead. Using your example above I'm guessing if you where in Chicago you would be on your way to jail. I beleive in some states you can have your gun in your vehicle, but has to be in a locked case.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

reb8600 said:


> It amazes me that people dont think that some training could do some good. Put a gun in someones hands that has never shot without some sort of education or training is an accident waiting to happen. Why do people put guns in safes with children around? Could it be because the children dont know how to handle them. Dont you think it is a good idea to train or teach someone to properly handle firearms?
> *Training is great. Not a problem. What is a problem is requiring training that means nothing. Again shooting one time for an hour at a range is just a waste of time and money. Most of these other states that require shooting are just this. Utah has said this has no benefit and that is backup up by the stats. If (and not that I think it should be this way) you said they needed to qualify once a month or they needed a 40 hour coarse, then I would concede that there would be a benefit. But I still come back to the simple fact that we have a lot of CCW permits issued with very little problems with concern to safety.*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

reb8600 said:


> Firearms bought in Utah are not registered with the state or the federal government. When you purchase one the paper work stays with the store until they go out of business. If you think they are, why dont you explain how you think they are.


You really need to drop the state registration thing, your the one who brought it up and your the only one talking about it. As far as federal registration goes, from 1934 to 1986 records were kept on a national level of all firearm purchases until it was overturned. Then again in with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 created a national background check system to prevent firearms sales to such "prohibited persons." In order to comply with the prohibition on a Federal registry of non-NFA items, records of background checks are legally required to be destroyed after 24 hours, however the BATFE has constantly made excuses to keep the computer records longer than the law allows. Their justification: "demographic and census reasons." This practice continues due to this law not being properly enforced. The proper enforcement of this provision has been a goal of gun rights groups.



reb8600 said:


> The little sticker with numbers and alphas by my understanding was done away with several years ago. I havent had them on mine for 2 years.


You really are missing the point here... these are all stupid hoops that law abiding citizens a forced to suffer through to ensure that the stupid few are taken care of.

Oh and BTW all firearms as defined in Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)) are still registered with the federal government, and transfers of said hardware must be document and tax transfered to the new owner.


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

hyperduc said:


> You really need to drop the state registration thing, your the one who brought it up .


Actually you are the one that brought it up on the 3rd page! No one discussed it until then.


hyperduc said:


> I have to register all my firearms because there are others who don't use them for legal purposes.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

reb8600 said:


> hyperduc said:
> 
> 
> > You really need to drop the state registration thing, your the one who brought it up .
> ...


Go back and read it again and tell me where you saw the word *UTAH*

You arguing with me over your misunderstand of a valid point is really beginning to make you look silly. If you don't believe that firearms are registered I would be more than happy to show you the $200 tax stamp that I have attached to a form titled "Application for Tax Paid Transfer and *Registration of Firearm*"


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

k2muskie said:


> Okay guys...color me STUPID the reason I made this post is this...if I drive cross country and get stopped without a concealed permit from any state...what 'really' would happen?


If that was the true intent of this topic...well then this thread got high-jacked two pages ago.

he National Firearms Act ("NFA"), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted 1934-06-26 has a provision titled safe passage. This passage states that persons traveling from one place to another cannot be arrested for a firearms offense in a state that has strict gun control laws if the traveler is just passing through (short stops for food and gas and presumably overnight stops on long trips excepted) and the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, unloaded and, in the case.

So if you had a firearm in CA that was not CA DOJ certified, as long as you followed the above mentioned requirements of safe passage you will be held harmless. If however you were concealed carrying it in a state that did not share reciprocity with issuing states CCP you would technically be breaking the law. I think enforcement is something that would be an officer discretionary issue.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Thanks for the info and no I don't think the thread was hijacked....some interesting discussions taking place. Nothing wrong with that just as long as it doesn't become a nasty discussion. Again thanks for answering my question. :wink: :wink:


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

hyperduc said:


> You arguing with me over your misunderstand of a valid point is really beginning to make you look silly. If you don't believe that firearms are registered I would be more than happy to show you the $200 tax stamp that I have attached to a form titled "Application for Tax Paid Transfer and *Registration of Firearm*"


Now I take it you are talking class III weapons right? If that is the case you could have mentioned that and saved a lot of hassle. A little information goes a long way. All you mentioned was "firearms". That covers a lot of different guns. My misunderstanding and as you put it making me look silly is only due to your lack of providing information.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

reb8600 said:


> Now I take it you are talking class III weapons right? If that is the case you could have mentioned that and saved a lot of hassle.


I said firearms, class three items are firearms...so what was so confusing? I just don't get why you insist on nitpicking it to death in the first place.:roll:


----------



## huntducksordietrying (Sep 21, 2007)

Gonna study some more. Before I repost that. Shoulda kept my mouth shut. Good debate going on here.


----------



## hyperduc (Sep 18, 2009)

huntducksordietrying said:


> The second amendment (along with the other first ten amendments) is only telling the Federal government what its limitations are. Each sovern state has its own right to legislate its own gun rights as it sees fit.


The constitution provides minimum rights for all citizens within the union, states rights are all of those not specifically defined by federal laws. A good example of this is the recent overturning (supreme court) of the D.C. handgun ban, and the reversal of several Illinois gun restrictions.on the basis the state restrictions violated federal protections. The court brief ruled the states power under the 10th amendment do not supersede the individual's right to second amendment protections.

Peripheral laws such as discharge, firearm type, accessibility to specific weapon types or class 3 weapons have been left to the states, which is where elected local officials comes into play.

On a side note I would contend that not even the federal government, let alone the individual states have the power to regulate firearm possession/regulation of any type.


----------



## rukus (Apr 11, 2008)

hyperduc said:


> On a side note I would contend that not even the federal government, let alone the individual states have the power to regulate firearm possession/regulation of any type.


AMEN! I have always thought that the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment for the following two reasons: 1) Allow the people to protect themselves from a suppressive tyrannical government. 2) Allow people to protect their god given right of "life". If this is the case, then how and why do we even need laws such as CCP that tells us who and where someone can protect themselves? I say this because to me, the 90 year old grandma who can barely hold up a gun and has no training at all, has the same right to defend herself as reb8600 who from the sounds of it is quite proficient with firearms. I don't mean that as a jab reb8600, I just don't think you deserve to be able to pull a trigger in defense of your life any more than grandma deserves it no matter how skilled you are with a gun.

Huntaholic has a very valid point about whether or not there is any proof showing a need for additional training to obtain a CCP. I would take it even one step further....what was the reasoning behind requiring a CCP in the first place? Is there any evidence that shows how much safer we are now today because of the CCP?


----------

