New Mexico drops and then re-adds FL and others from CCW Reciprocity

[wyntrout]

What gives with New Mexico?? They've dropped Florida and many others from the CCW Reciprocity List for some reason. I've noticed a lot of talk by guys from other states wondering what's up.

If I ever get to drive out to Colorado again, that's one state I have to travel through... mostly mountains and boonies north of Santa Fe.

Wynn:)

[chrish]

I suspect as the castle doctrine continues to be the poster child of us evil gun toting freaks, companies and governments will continue to distance themselves from it. Gun rights will never get better, only worse. It's just not in the cards. Kraft, Coke, and Pepsi have now all pulled the plug on ALEC for crafting the castle doctrine laws across the country...all without any true justification. It really won't matter how FL turns out, the damage has been done to the 2A thanks to the media.

[TucsonMTB]

What gives with New Mexico?? They've dropped Florida and many others from the CCW Reciprocity List for some reason. I've noticed a lot of talk by guys from other states wondering what's up.

If I ever get to drive out to Colorado again, that's one state I have to travel through... mostly mountains and boonies north of Santa Fe.

Wynn:)
It has nothing to do with recent events in Florida. New Mexico has been reviewing the training requirements imposed by other states who issue permits for several months. Many, including Arizona, were informed earlier this year that the process was underway and that initial indications were there would be some changes. When Arizona pretty much ignored the notice (we have almost NO training requirements) the reciprocal agreement with Arizona was ended.

I'm sure the New Mexico folks believe they are doing the right thing. Whatever . . . http://home.mindspring.com/%7Ejustsomeguy/icon_lol.gif

[jg rider]

Not to long ago Nevada also dropped it's reciprocity with Utah and some other states, because Nevada requires proof of firearms proficiency, where as all that is necessary in Utah is to sit in a class and listen to some instructor tell you the dos and don'ts, the laws and "this is a revolver , this is an auto, this is how you load and unload a revolver, and this is how you load and unload an auto".
That's also how it's done in our home state of OR. and that's how it was done when we got our non resident Utah licenses.
In OR. people have to attend a class and listen to the B.S. unless they had a prior CHL, produce match scores from competition, or were in the military, LEO, etc.
The non resident Utah license required us to attend a class to learn the laws of Utah.

IMHO I applaud states that require proof of knowledge and proficiency with a hand gun. Nation wide reciprocity without some kind of qualification scares me

[lowroad]

Yep, it's a requirement/training issue. We have to sit mandatory for 16 hours and actually shoot to qualify to obtain a CCW here. Many folks here just get a utah permit as well.

[Longitude Zero]

IMHO I applaud states that require proof of knowledge and proficiency with a hand gun. Nation wide reciprocity without some kind of qualification scares me

I agree. All you have to do is see the kooks/nutjobs/dolts walking around at a lot of gun shows to see why I feel that way. You know the type, all cammoed up and carrying more weapons than Carters got pills.

[QuercusMax]

While I don't like the idea of the Federal government sticking its nose into this area, it's also really annoying that each state does things differently, has different rules, etc. I hate it when you can be driving along being perfectly legal one moment and one mile down the road you are breaking someone else's law.

Seems like some generally-uniform guidelines would be useful. We have national standards in a number of areas, so why not firearms? Although there are many other counter-examples, such as in when cell phones can be used while driving, motorcycle helmets required or not, etc, so maybe it's hopeless.

The Utah carry permit is quite popular and training for it was offered as part of the carry training I did a while back in Minnesota, but as others have mentioned it is all about Utah laws and has no requirement for demonstrating proficiency, thus seemed pretty lame to me.

I'm all about freedom, but I think that anyone who carries a gun should have at least minimally demonstrated proficiency in its use, just like you have to do to drive a car.

[Bawanna]

I disagree with the mandatory training myself. I think a person that feels they need it should seek it, have the maturity to seek the training.
I work with and know numerous people who have attended lots of very high speed low drag training and THEY scare me too. Almost an overconfidence issue. And funny thing is many of them won't touch a 1911??????? Not enough cushion for safety perhaps.

I've not met a "Certified Instructor" yet that was anything but a know it all on a higher plain than the mere mortals required to sit in their class.

The dude that taught my sons Hunter Safety course was a piece of work, we had word numerous times.

I have high hopes of TD2K becoming a pleasant and informative instructor but I'll probably have to get an operation before I can attend one of her classes.

Hopefully if they ever require mandatory (I do hate that word) they'll grandfather in the guys that have been shooting for more than a few years, of course they'll want proof of that and I'm not sure how they'll work that.
I'll probably just have to become illegal, lot of that going around too.

[lowroad]

Well, I'll grant you it doesn't make a whole bunch of sense since you only have to demonstrate that you can shoot the thing when applying to carry concealed. Any yahoo with $400 can walk into sportman's warehouse,buy a pistol, and is fully within his legal right to strap it on and carry it openly throughout the state. No permit of any sort required.

[wyntrout]

The "Grandfathering" scheme is used to get otherwise terrible and hard to pass legislation passed... lessening objections... in other words, giving up other's future rights... then, at some point in the future, the legislatures can change the law to include this smaller class of "haves" because now there are a lot of "have-nots" who think the others should be likewise encumbered or hampered as they are... kind of the "nose of the camel under the tent" before the whole camel is in there with you.:eek:

It would be nice if all children were taught gun safety to preclude or lessen the chance of inquiring young minds finding out about guns the hard way. But NO, no gun safety training, but they can have training in sexual intercourse and condom use... or learn about "diversity", Heather's two moms, leftist/progressive indoctrination, history revision... and SELF ESTEEM... where the world revolves around them!

It's nice that the federal government is NOT in charge of CWP licensing... none of us would have licenses... and we would be nice little sheeple subjects for the the-oh-so-smart, but unelected bureaucrats and "elite" politicians to RULE us.

States' rights took a big hit when the "people" were allowed to vote for their state Senators, as well as the Representatives in a Progressive Party supported 17th Amendment. There was a reason that our forefathers set up the government representation that way. Now the PEOPLE, most of whom seem oblivious to anything other than what's in it for them, choose all of the Congressmen and the STATES have no one to represent them. That and the extreme misuse of the Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution have made the States nearly powerless and the Feds can withhold money from the States to get compliance with just about anything the Federal government wants... as they did with highway funds to get compliance with the national speed limit of 55MPH.

Wynn:)

[TucsonMTB]

Well, I'll grant you it doesn't make a whole bunch of sense since you only have to demonstrate that you can shoot the thing when applying to carry concealed. Any yahoo with $400 can walk into sportman's warehouse,buy a pistol, and is fully within his legal right to strap it on and carry it openly throughout the state. No permit of any sort required.
Uhm, yeah. I think it has something to do with The Constitution. Maybe amendment number two?!

It's a good thing . . . trust me. http://home.mindspring.com/%7Ejustsomeguy/icon_lol.gif

[Tinman507]

The biggest problem with mandatory training is, it sets you on the edge of a slippery slope. Once a traning mandate is in place, it's very easy to keep raising the bar higher, changing the requirements. It can even be made to make it impossible to get training, depending on the newly imposed requirements.

All you have to do is look at Washington DC's hoops you gotta jump through just to be able to own a gun.

[TucsonMTB]

It's nice that the federal government is NOT in charge of CWP licensing... none of us would have licenses... and we would be nice little sheeple subjects for the the-oh-so-smart, but unelected bureaucrats and "elite" politicians to RULE us.
Amen, brother!

[OldLincoln]

I'm not a fan of mandatory anything, but after reading about some of the knotheads that visit our local ranges, I'm thinking it may be a good idea to at least test knowledge of basic laws and gun safety. Does any state issue drivers licenses without even a simple proficiency check?

I said before, my concern for national carry license is they would revert to the highest state's requirements, including max rounds, strict concealment, etc. But what's a state to do that has restrictions for it's citizens, allow a visitor to disregard them? I cannot even buy a PM45 in CA because it's not on the list.

[DKD]

I am a stricy Constitutionalist. As I see it the second ammendment is just as it is stated as far as the right of all citizens to keep & bear arms. Just like your car and that is a privledge and is not to be construed as a right.... we should be responsable for our actions and with it comes the responsability that goes with it to use that tool wisely. So I am against mandatory anything as we have all seen what history has taught us about that. We as a people need to seek out the training if we intend to take on this responsabilty as was intened by our founding fathers.

[DKD]

Sorry for the mispellings, got carried away and been hanging around brother JOCKO to long. :D

[TucsonMTB]

I'm not a fan of mandatory anything, but after reading about some of the knotheads that visit our local ranges, I'm thinking it may be a good idea to at least test knowledge of basic laws and gun safety. Does any state issue drivers licenses without even a simple proficiency check?

I said before, my concern for national carry license is they would revert to the highest state's requirements, including max rounds, strict concealment, etc. But what's a state to do that has restrictions for it's citizens, allow a visitor to disregard them? I cannot even buy a PM45 in CA because it's not on the list.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqEypi6oen1w7OwK2e-dx8ygMklrR7xoUC00H-ymo4hIj82l3BwA
Perhaps they could just post a sign, like they do in gun free zones to keep the criminals from carrying their weapons there? What do you think? Would that work?

[jg rider]

Well, I'll grant you it doesn't make a whole bunch of sense since you only have to demonstrate that you can shoot the thing when applying to carry concealed. Any yahoo with $400 can walk into sportman's warehouse,buy a pistol, and is fully within his legal right to strap it on and carry it openly throughout the state. No permit of any sort required.

Open carry also happens here, but with a twist.
In certain cities you have to have a CHL. If stopped you need to show your C.H.L. (concealed handgun license). Or you can open carry an unloaded handgun all you want there.
In other cities you don't need a CHL to open carry, and if stopped because of a concern you don't have to supply any information like name, address, not anything. So nobody knows if they can legally have a gun.
Also in both above scenarios a non resident of the state can walk around open carrying as long as it's unloaded.

I'm sure you all know of the nation wide open carry forum. I get a kick going there to read and watch some of the videos from my state. Like the guy that goes into a police station and announces that he's legally open carrying, with his cousin who's recording the event. Police playing dumb, held the guy for hours asking questions, leaving him locked up lone. After 4 dead cam corder batteries later they let him go. But hey! He got er done.

I think for open carry they should also have to have a CHL and show proficiency.

[wyntrout]

There's the rub... showing proficiency to whose standard? The Liberal, Anti-gunners would help with drafting the "standards" I'm sure. Then you would have to take a 100-hour course, pass a psychological examination, need the permission of your doctor, employer, and the local chief of police... for starters. Then we'll talk about the "weapon" they'll let you carry, how and when, to include locked, unloaded, and the narrow conditions under which you might be allowed to carry ammunition as well, etc.:rolleyes:

Yeah, that won't be too burdensome for your "freedom".

Wynn:)

[Tinman507]

Who's going to be the arbiter of "proficiency"?

[wyntrout]

Greasing up the "slippery slope"!

:popcorn:

Wynn:)

[jg rider]

Are there any here that had to show proficiency wih a handgun before getting their license. Like loading, unloading, safe handling, hitting a target at 10 yds.

I'm also interested in different state restrictions. Like here we can carry concealed into state L.E. locations if not posted, in public schools, bars, airports (according to state legislators)( I'm not testing that one). I think the only place we can't carry is in a court house and federal buildings.

[lowroad]

Uhm, yeah. I think it has something to do with The Constitution. Maybe amendment number two?!

It's a good thing . . . trust me. http://home.mindspring.com/%7Ejustsomeguy/icon_lol.gif
Well, of course it's a good thing. My point is that it makes no sense that I can buy and carry a .50 cal on my hip with no regulations, but when I choose to put a jacket over it, I suddenly have to demonstrate some competence. All or nothing, says I.

[Bawanna]

Are there any here that had to show proficiency wih a handgun before getting their license. Like loading, unloading, safe handling, hitting a target at 10 yds.

I'm also interested in different state restrictions. Like here we can carry concealed into state L.E. locations if not posted, in public schools, bars, airports (according to state legislators)( I'm not testing that one). I think the only place we can't carry is in a court house and federal buildings.

In Washington you can't carry in a public school or bar, you can carry into an airport up to but not including the terminal where the TSA / Walmart Greeters are, and you can carry in a L.E. location if not posted.

I know our County Sheriffs office has their own TSA at the entrance so that's a no no. They will take you gun and give it back when you leave. I didn't realize this and was parked a long ways away, they saved me a trip by holding it for me.
There is no proficiency test of any kind in Washington.

[TucsonMTB]

Well, of course it's a good thing. My point is that it makes no sense that I can buy and carry a .50 cal on my hip with no regulations, but when I choose to put a jacket over it, I suddenly have to demonstrate some competence. All or nothing, says I.
We are probably spoiled by our laws here in Arizona. No permit is required for most concealed or open carry, if you stay out of bars, which I generally do. ;)

[lowroad]

We're close to being as cool as AZ, but not quite :) The first time I went to visit my uncle in Sierra Vista, we were in Tuscon at some diner near nowhere. I looked over and saw a biker type leaned over the counter with a .45 sticking out of his belt line. I don't mean suburb guy that owns a harley, I mean BIKER. Sandblasted face, dusty, probably always dusty, I mean real outlaw biker. Being a New Yorker, I whispered "Uncle Peter...that guy has a gun!". I will never forget how he looked at me and said "AND...? Son, this ain't New York, eat your eggs".

I made the decision to someday move to the southwest then and there.

[ptoemmes]

I first got my CCP in Florida maybe 15 years ago. Took a course (classroom general stuff and laws) and range time (general firearm familiarity and "proficiency" with your weapon). Group project to fill out the paperwork and submit. I've renewed once (another 10 years), but just a new pic, proof of residency, notary stuff.

I do not know if you now must take a course in Florida, but I do know the gun shows always put on those four hour special get your CCP courses.

I am certain in Florida you can carry onto airport property but not in the terminal. On the other hand you cannot legally carry onto port (Port Everglades or Port of Miami) property at all.

Pete

[TucsonMTB]

We're close to being as cool as AZ, but not quite :) The first time I went to visit my uncle in Sierra Vista, we were in Tuscon at some diner near nowhere. I looked over and saw a biker type leaned over the counter with a .45 sticking out of his belt line. I don't mean suburb guy that owns a harley, I mean BIKER. Sandblasted face, dusty, probably always dusty, I mean real outlaw biker. Being a New Yorker, I whispered "Uncle Peter...that guy has a gun!". I will never forget how he looked at me and said "AND...? Son, this ain't New York, eat your eggs".

I made the decision to someday move to the southwest then and there.
Priceless! :biggrin1:

[wyntrout]

I got my permit in 1997 here in Jacksonville after taking a two-hour class($35 and no gun-handling or shooting) at a local gun show where they even had a Sheriff's Department person taking your fingerprints for a $7 fee. I didn't "need" the class but it was a one-stop for everything and gave me a little insight into concealed carry. The first license was $117 for three years. The next two were for 3 and 5 years and the last time I renewed it was for 7 years. That's when Nevada dropped reciprocity with Florida a few years ago.

I served in the Air Force... enlisted and officer... and had all kinds of training... short of actual combat-type training, with recurring qualification with various sidearms from the S&W .38 specials, M-1 carbine, and the Remington 870 12-ga shotgun, as did my wife. She probably got to shoot the M-16 in Basic, though. Those were new and I got to clean a few but never officially shot any while in the service... and I did carry an M-16 at Da Nang AB during the First Tet Offensive (end of January 1968) as a newly-promoted SSGT and project NCO of our TDY Detachment to Da Nang. As an NCO aircrew member, I was also wearing an S&W Model 15 .38 special and I had 7 mags for the M-16 with me. Our Project Officer, a 1st LT, signed for and brought me the M-16 on the eve of Tet since our MASH-type tent was on the inner of two chainlink fences on the southeast perimeter of the base, AND Army S-2 (or whatever) was predicting an attack that night, though there was a "Truce". Most of the USAF personnel on the base weren't armed, though I heard rumors of conexs loaded with weapons were around somewhere. So I felt kind of "privileged" that I had not only one, but two weapons. Most USAF personnel never touched a weapon again after basic training... unless their job required the use of weapons. And most never used a pistol, so the Honorable Discharge proof required... DD214, doesn't mean you know anything about pistols in particular, but the DD214 can be used as proof that you've had honorable military service and training with some kind of weapon, instead of taking the required class. This is the route we'll take with my wife's application. Now we can call the Agricultural Department that handles licensing and get an appointment and bring the required documentation. They will fingerprint and photograph her at the appointment and no notary is needed for the application. There she can pay the fee and they will submit the application. We can renew that way, too, now.

Wynn:)

[AIRret]

In Michigan we have to take a book learning class and then qualify at the range. We have to shoot 30 rounds consecutively in a silhouette target. If you miss it once you have to start over the 30 count over.

[Longitude Zero]

In OK you spend more time getting fingerprinted and dealing with the paperwrok situation for a CCW. But the course is 8 hours class/range and all you really have to do is load and shoot at a B-27 or similar type target, hit it at least once and do not hit anybody else.

[Chief Joseph]

I agree. All you have to do is see the kooks/nutjobs/dolts walking around at a lot of gun shows to see why I feel that way. You know the type, all cammoed up and carrying more weapons than Carters got pills.

Never understood this attitude. The 2nd Amendment is about everyone having the right to defend themselves, not just those deemed "good enough" to have the right. I can guarantee you there are those who feel they're more qualified than you to carry and feel you shouldn't either. I suppose those who are handicapped shouldn't carry too, right? This smacks fully of the same libtard elitism that's ruining this country. It's also why I love seeing the self taught beginners on Top Shot whip the "highly trained", which they do a lot, and knowing those same "trained" guys feeling that the others don't even belong in the competition with them. Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves, not just those who are self appointed "experts".

[JFootin]

Never understood this attitude. The 2nd Amendment is about everyone having the right to defend themselves, not just those deemed "good enough" to have the right. I can guarantee you there are those who feel they're more qualified than you to carry and feel you shouldn't either. I suppose those who are handicapped shouldn't carry too, right? This smacks fully of the same libtard elitism that's ruining this country. It's also why I love seeing the self taught beginners on Top Shot whip the "highly trained", which they do a lot, and knowing those same "trained" guys feeling that the others don't even belong in the competition with them. Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves, not just those who are self appointed "experts".

The libtard anti-gunners are so ignorant and removed from reality about the issue, like Ralph Nader who wrote "Unsafe At Any Speed" and doomed the Corvair, yet to this day he has never had a driver's license or driven an automobile. And these idiots want to run our lives for us! :mad:

[Deano]

When I took my CHL class in Orygun, I didn't want to sit in a class for 4 hours and listen to boring lectures. We have no proficiency testing. It's all class room sessions. So I just took an online class. Pass the test afterward and you're good to go. Seems a bit loose, but that's the law here. Only requirement in Oregon is that you pass a class given by NRA licensed instructor, or LE officer, and it can be done on-line. Only took me a couple of hours sitting at my computer.

[muggsy]

I don't have a problem with having to qualify. Our military and police have to demonstrate some degree of marksmanship. In the CCW course I took we were required to fire 100 rounds with the last ten for record. Basically you had to be able to keep ten shots on a 10 X 12 sheet of paper at 21 feet. Piece of cake. If you aren't at least that good you shouldn't be carrying.

[Deano]

I don't have a problem with having to qualify. Our military and police have to demonstrate some degree of marksmanship. In the CCW course I took we were required to fire 100 rounds with the last ten for record. Basically you had to be able to keep ten shots on a 10 X 12 sheet of paper at 21 feet. Piece of cake. If you aren't at least that good you shouldn't be carrying.
Not 100% sure I would agree with that. Yes, some proficiency is desirable, but who decides what size target from how far? My wife might struggle with the 100% 10x12 at 7 yards. However, she can hit BG from 10 ft. After all, isn't that the point of carrying.

[Chief Joseph]

Not 100% sure I would agree with that. Yes, some proficiency is desirable, but who decides what size target from how far? My wife might struggle with the 100% 10x12 at 7 yards. However, she can hit BG from 10 ft. After all, isn't that the point of carrying.

Exactly, once the door is opened for a person to meet some elitists concept of "proficient", it could quite easily be moved to a point no one could qualify. And again, can someone point to that line in the 2nd Amendment that states you have to be an incredible good shot to be able to defend yourself? Honestly, even so called "experts" miss, so should they be judged unfit to carry because they occasionally miss? Some of these "Top Shot" people, some with extensive years in law enforcement and military fold like paper under the pressure, and their lives aren't even in danger. It takes a real arrogance to state that you believe yourself qualified, but can judge someone else to not be. Some of the most trained people in the world can't handle real pressure and panic, and some people are naturally cool under fire with zero training at all. Some things you can't be trained for, you either have it or you don't. All this aside, every law abiding citizen has the right, from little old ladies to 350lb cops, to defend themselves.

[Longitude Zero]

Never understood this attitude. The 2nd Amendment is about everyone having the right to defend themselves, not just those deemed "good enough" to have the right. I can guarantee you there are those who feel they're more qualified than you to carry and feel you shouldn't either. I suppose those who are handicapped shouldn't carry too, right? This smacks fully of the same libtard elitism that's ruining this country. It's also why I love seeing the self taught beginners on Top Shot whip the "highly trained", which they do a lot, and knowing those same "trained" guys feeling that the others don't even belong in the competition with them. Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves, not just those who are self appointed "experts".

In theory I do not disagree. Just because you can dress up like a circus clown does not mean it is a good idea. Sadly just because you can do something with reckless abandon does not mean it is a good idea. Discretion plays a part in the talents of a well trained individual. No discretion folks are frequently seen on the news ina bad light.

Sometimes not antogonizing the opposition is the same as a win and really should be appreciated.

The problem with most conservatives is that they only support another conservative if they agree 100% with them. This is counterproductive and sheer stupidity. For instance if a politician is 100% for 2A rights and 100% for abotion I am not so ignorant to not support them because of their stance on abortion, sadly way too many folks do exactly this.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

[jg rider]

Never understood this attitude. The 2nd Amendment is about everyone having the right to defend themselves, not just those deemed "good enough" to have the right. I can guarantee you there are those who feel they're more qualified than you to carry and feel you shouldn't either. I suppose those who are handicapped shouldn't carry too, right? This smacks fully of the same libtard elitism that's ruining this country. It's also why I love seeing the self taught beginners on Top Shot whip the "highly trained", which they do a lot, and knowing those same "trained" guys feeling that the others don't even belong in the competition with them. Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves, not just those who are self appointed "experts".

I agree that everyone has the right to defend themselves, but not at the expense of some innocent bystander because someone doesn't think about their gun being loaded, or keeping the trigger finger out of the trigger guard, points it at someone, and worst of all, is to shoot and miss because there is no training. I for one am not proposing expert marksmanship or runnng an obstical course, but a knowledge of your limits when shooting your carry gun and the consequences of poor gun safety can go a long way.


When I took my CHL class in Orygun, I didn't want to sit in a class for 4 hours and listen to boring lectures. We have no proficiency testing. It's all class room sessions. So I just took an online class. Pass the test afterward and you're good to go. Seems a bit loose, but that's the law here. Only requirement in Oregon is that you pass a class given by NRA licensed instructor, or LE officer, and it can be done on-line. Only took me a couple of hours sitting at my computer.

Wow! It's worst then I was told.


I don't have a problem with having to qualify. Our military and police have to demonstrate some degree of marksmanship. In the CCW course I took we were required to fire 100 rounds with the last ten for record. Basically you had to be able to keep ten shots on a 10 X 12 sheet of paper at 21 feet. Piece of cake. If you aren't at least that good you shouldn't be carrying.

Amen!

[jg rider]

Deleted

[chrish]

guys, the military has standards and training b/c they have a job to do and that job is to kill people and win wars. they do not have training for the express purpose of keeping the masses safe or knowing how to safely handle a weapon. yes, that is a by-product of that training, but not the purpose. they train to be proficient in hitting a target under stress. so in the case of the military, i applaud training so they win and win decisively.

i'm with the strict constitutionalists here. no training requirements, no permits, no restrictions. open carry, concealed carry, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. if the 1A people can do and say what they want, anywhere, without restrictions, then i can do the same with my 2A right. are we going to require grammer training, debate classes, education, logic, etc. for people that want to stand on a street corner and yell 'save the blank'.

its up to me how i choose to exercise that right and how i wish to prepare to exercise that right.

i quite frankly do not care whether anybody else does or does not learn how to be safe with their weapon. if its concealed and/or holstered, i have no concerns. if it becomes unholstered and unconcealed in my presense, so will mine!

more regulations, hoops to jump thru, stipulations on how and when you can exercise your 2A right will only result in more regulations, hoops to jump thru and stipulations. nature of the beast.

[CJB]

When I was actively training 25-30 folks a week, my own curriculum included basics.

1. Overview of the law.
2. Arms types, brief description of double vs single action, revolver vs semi-auto, etc.
3. Firing the shot - how to determine the best safe direction for the muzzle to point, how to safely load, make safe, aim, fire, make safe again, unload, and demonstrate that the firearm was unloaded.
4. Live fire, approximately 15 rounds at a bullseye target at about 7 yards.
5. The licensing process.

I did fail a few folks - where were allowed to retake the class at any later date for no additional cost. The biggest complainers about "having to take the class", were the biggest foul ups, with a few going so far as to have ND's inside the showroom of the range (not in my presence or under my direct suporvision and/or tutorage).

~

No class will make you a great shooter. The class can make you a SAFE shooter. Biased opinion here from someone who has taught plenty of folks for money - money aside, its not a bad thing to sit through a class of basics again, just because.

I been riding motorcycles since before I was in Jr High School. This was first on grass, then dirt, then trails, then backroads (illegally but... oh well), then highways. Fast forward from age 10 or so to age 51. I am forced to take a class...to learn how to ride. How to duckwalk a bike, how to use a choke, how to use a clutch... the friction zone, the balance zone... I'm not so much bored to tears as anxious to not do poorly.

What I learned: How to do a figure 8 inside of four parking spaces. How to panic stop while downshifting, and avoiding an obstruction. How to pull up in a turn and renegotiate the turn, and how to creep at a snails pace with no feet down, by applying the back brake and keeping engine-power/torque up on the rear wheel.

The old dog learned new tricks Bawanna.... just sayin!

[Chief Joseph]

"I agree that everyone has the right to defend themselves, but not at the expense of some innocent bystander because someone doesn't think about their gun being loaded, or keeping the trigger finger out of the trigger guard, points it at someone, and worst of all, is to shoot and miss because there is no training. I for one am not proposing expert marksmanship or runnng an obstical course, but a knowledge of your limits when shooting your carry gun and the consequences of poor gun safety can go a long way."


Even the "most trained" can have this happen too. There's a video of a cop shooting his own foot holstering his gun in a school, in fact didn't I read here a Kahr employee accidentally firing a gun he was repairing? EVERYONE is prone to mistakes, trained or not. I saw a video of a cop in a gun fight at close range after pulling a truck over, both fired several shots at close range and hit nothing. We had a cop trying to shoot a bg here in portland 20 years ago and missed and killed the guys kid hostage. Based on accidents, NO ONE should carry. My nephew just bought his first handgun and he's more careful with it than guys I know who've carried for so long it's second nature and forget they're even carrying. Much like a cop locally who put his loaded gun down in front of his 3 year old and the child shot and killed him. Plus we had a detective here who took her gun off in the bathroom stall and forgot it when she was done, I don't think they ever recovered it. If mistakes are the concern, trust me, the "trained" make plenty of mistakes all on their own.

[jg rider]

deleted

[les strat]

While I don't like the idea of the Federal government sticking its nose into this area, it's also really annoying that each state does things differently, has different rules, etc. I hate it when you can be driving along being perfectly legal one moment and one mile down the road you are breaking someone else's law.

Seems like some generally-uniform guidelines would be useful. We have national standards in a number of areas, so why not firearms? Although there are many other counter-examples, such as in when cell phones can be used while driving, motorcycle helmets required or not, etc, so maybe it's hopeless.

The Utah carry permit is quite popular and training for it was offered as part of the carry training I did a while back in Minnesota, but as others have mentioned it is all about Utah laws and has no requirement for demonstrating proficiency, thus seemed pretty lame to me.

I'm all about freedom, but I think that anyone who carries a gun should have at least minimally demonstrated proficiency in its use, just like you have to do to drive a car.


guys, the military has standards and training b/c they have a job to do and that job is to kill people and win wars. they do not have training for the express purpose of keeping the masses safe or knowing how to safely handle a weapon. yes, that is a by-product of that training, but not the purpose. they train to be proficient in hitting a target under stress. so in the case of the military, i applaud training so they win and win decisively.

i'm with the strict constitutionalists here. no training requirements, no permits, no restrictions. open carry, concealed carry, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. if the 1A people can do and say what they want, anywhere, without restrictions, then i can do the same with my 2A right. are we going to require grammer training, debate classes, education, logic, etc. for people that want to stand on a street corner and yell 'save the blank'.

its up to me how i choose to exercise that right and how i wish to prepare to exercise that right.

i quite frankly do not care whether anybody else does or does not learn how to be safe with their weapon. if its concealed and/or holstered, i have no concerns. if it becomes unholstered and unconcealed in my presense, so will mine!

more regulations, hoops to jump thru, stipulations on how and when you can exercise your 2A right will only result in more regulations, hoops to jump thru and stipulations. nature of the beast.


^^^^THIS!

Either you go 100% by The Constitution, or you don't. ".....keep AND bear." It's scary, but what's scarier is when you have someone "smarter than you" making decisions on something like 2A. Now who would that be?

[jg rider]

So some people don't want government involved in their lives. Correct me if I'm wrong that it's the congress (Government) that passed the resolution for national reciprocity. And it now has to go before the senate (government) for approval.

And some states are balking because they think it goes against the 10th amendment. And others don't want guns in their states. So why don't we tell the government to butt out. And let the states fight it out.

Or do we want our cake and eat it at the same time?

The government doesn't have any say on how gun laws are written in the states. AFAIK the "shall issue" wording doesn't apply to all states/counties

[chrish]

So some people don't want government involved in their lives. Correct me if I'm wrong that it's the congress (Government) that passed the resolution for national reciprocity. And it now has to go before the senate (government) for approval.

And some states are balking because they think it goes against the 10th amendment. And others don't want guns in their states. So why don't we tell the government to butt out. And let the states fight it out.

Or do we want our cake and eat it at the same time?

The government doesn't have any say on how gun laws are written in the states. AFAIK the "shall issue" wording doesn't apply to all states/counties


yes and no on the cake question...

the states are responsible for all things not defined in the Constitution...but the 2A is an enumerated right. which we now go back to the ONLY reason that I (personally) consider the BoR useful vs the Federalist position that we didn't need them b/c the Constitution (proper) dealt w/ it by NOT mentioning it. the states do NOT have the ability (strict Constitutional) to legislate or restrict things enumerated in the Constitution. So, the need for national reciprocity is not necessary (to the letter of the law of the Constitution). But because of where things have gone, some see if as necessary.

If we really adhered to the Constitution, none of those laws that pushed Congress to pass the reciprocity resolution would have existed in the first place, thus, no need for the reciprocity crap.

Slippery slope...it's not just a theory, this proves it.

But, I'm no Constitutional scholar :)

[QuercusMax]

I remember well the day I attended the training & proficiency test required to get my first CCW permit back in Minnesota.

The instructor brought in a variety of handguns to demonstrate them to the class, and to let people handle them. Of the dozen people in the class, some had a lot of experience and some obviously had almost none.

During a break, one of the "mature" attendees picked up one of the guns and starting pointing it around the room. Yikes!!!! Clueless. Yet here was a guy who was planning to get a carry permit.

I am much more afraid of idiots than I am of BGs or the US government (of which I am also afraid, just much less so).

Training doesn't prevent stupidity - nothing can - but some basic training can at least reduce the chance that people who are allowed to carry deadly weapons in public are ignorant of proper procedures and the law.

I really enjoyed that CCW course I took because I learned a lot. And everyone passed the proficiency test, although the idiot barely did.

[jg rider]

I remember well the day I attended the training & proficiency test required to get my first CCW permit back in Minnesota.

The instructor brought in a variety of handguns to demonstrate them to the class, and to let people handle them. Of the dozen people in the class, some had a lot of experience and some obviously had almost none.

During a break, one of the "mature" attendees picked up one of the guns and starting pointing it around the room. Yikes!!!! Clueless. Yet here was a guy who was planning to get a carry permit.

I am much more afraid of idiots than I am of BGs or the US government (of which I am also afraid, just much less so).

Training doesn't prevent stupidity - nothing can - but some basic training can at least reduce the chance that people who are allowed to carry deadly weapons in public are ignorant of proper procedures and the law.

I really enjoyed that CCW course I took because I learned a lot. And everyone passed the proficiency test, although the idiot barely did.

You had a test? Not here or Utah
Just spoke with my brother in law who lives in Nevada. He told me aside from the instructors showing off, the state law requires a dos and don'ts safety course, and applicants must show familiarity with the handgun they're going to carry. And they must have a passing score on a target about 20' away to be certified. Their permit says which gun they certified with. If they want to carry something else they need to recertify with the other gun. They can have a max. of two on their permit.

Wife and I have had CHL for over 30 yrs. We got them back when the law read "the sheriff may issue" We were special cases. Back then the licenses stated what you were going to carry. I remember when we had to interview with the sheriff. First he called me into his office while my wife waited in the outer office. He already knew that we could shoot from our resumes and he knew I did custom work. He asked me if we were carrying what we wanted permits for. When I said yes, he asked if he could see it. I was carrying a cocked and locked 1911. So I faced away from him drew the pistol, dropped the mag, jacked out the chambered round, locked the slide back and handed it to him, butt first. He made some remark about nice workmanship. He handed it back, I reloaded and he walked me to the door.
Next he called my wife in. After a while they came out. He walked to his secretary's desk signed some papers and said "you both passed" From there we were finger printed and had our pictures taken and waited for the background check to be done. I found out later that he also asked to see her carry piece. So she showed him her 2 1/2" Smith .44 mag. Just kidding, back then she was carrying a .38 S&W mod.60

Since the laws changed to "the sheriff shall issue" I've personally seen
A guy shoot himself in the foot because he was holstering a unfamiliar 1911 with the thumb safety off and his finger in the trigger guard
I had a lady with a new CHL innocently/ jokenly point her loaded revolver at me. When I told her it was a no no especially when she had her finger on the trigger, she replied that she was told it was O.K. with a revolver
I was present after a cool guy shot himself in the ass and calf. He decided to Mexican carry a Glock in the waist band of a pair of dress pants that had buttons on the inside for suspenders. Guess what Happened?
I know of a guy that shot himself in the calf with a .45 as he was sitting on his living room floor jacking rounds out of his gun by working the slide.

These are people, if I know, I don't want around me

[tv_racin_fan]

So some people don't want government involved in their lives. Correct me if I'm wrong that it's the congress (Government) that passed the resolution for national reciprocity. And it now has to go before the senate (government) for approval.

And some states are balking because they think it goes against the 10th amendment. And others don't want guns in their states. So why don't we tell the government to butt out. And let the states fight it out.

Or do we want our cake and eat it at the same time?

The government doesn't have any say on how gun laws are written in the states. AFAIK the "shall issue" wording doesn't apply to all states/counties


Actually the GOVT (more correctly the FEDERAL GOVT) does have a say. See the CONSTITUTION applies to everyone and every portion of the GOVT in the US. Federal and State and according to that Constitution the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed. To me that means that both the Federal Govt and the individual State govt(s) and the local township govts have not the right to pass any law which restricts on my ability to keep and bear. It is the duty of at least one part of the Federal Govt to ensure that the US Constitution is upheld by the laws passed by even the smallest of township govts. It is the duty of the people to ensure that all govts within the US are upholding the US Constitution and any govt they feel is not doing so should be brought to the attention of both the people and that portion of the Federal Govt that is charged with that duty.

[JFootin]

You had a test? Not here or Utah
Just spoke with my brother in law who lives in Nevada. He told me aside from the instructors showing off, the state law requires a dos and don'ts safety course, and applicants must show familiarity with the handgun they're going to carry. And they must have a passing score on a target about 20' away to be certified. Their permit says which gun they certified with. If they want to carry something else they need to recertify with the other gun. They can have a max. of two on their permit.

Wife and I have had CHL for over 30 yrs. We got them back when the law read "the sheriff may issue" We were special cases. Back then the licenses stated what you were going to carry. I remember when we had to interview with the sheriff. First he called me into his office while my wife waited in the outer office. He already knew that we could shoot from our resumes and he knew I did custom work. He asked me if we were carrying what we wanted permits for. When I said yes, he asked if he could see it. I was carrying a cocked and locked 1911. So I faced away from him drew the pistol, dropped the mag, jacked out the chambered round, locked the slide back and handed it to him, butt first. He made some remark about nice workmanship. He handed it back, I reloaded and he walked me to the door.
Next he called my wife in. After a while they came out. He walked to his secretary's desk signed some papers and said "you both passed" From there we were finger printed and had our pictures taken and waited for the background check to be done. I found out later that he also asked to see her carry piece. So she showed him her 2 1/2" Smith .44 mag. Just kidding, back then she was carrying a .38 S&W mod.60

Since the laws changed to "the sheriff shall issue" I've personally seen
A guy shoot himself in the foot because he was holstering a unfamiliar 1911 with the thumb safety off and his finger in the trigger guard
I had a lady with a new CHL innocently/ jokenly point her loaded revolver at me. When I told her it was a no no especially when she had her finger on the trigger, she replied that she was told it was O.K. with a revolver
I was present after a cool guy shot himself in the ass and calf. He decided to Mexican carry a Glock in the waist band of a pair of dress pants that had buttons on the inside for suspenders. Guess what Happened?
I know of a guy that shot himself in the calf with a .45 as he was sitting on his living room floor jacking rounds out of his gun by working the slide.

These are people, if I know, I don't want around me

JG, you must have very good eyes, but please increase your font size so the rest of us don't have to use a magnifying glass! :nerd:

[jg rider]

JG, you must have very good eyes, but please increase your font size so the rest of us don't have to use a magnifying glass! :nerd:
What happened? How did it get gigantic size?

[jg rider]

Actually the GOVT (more correctly the FEDERAL GOVT) does have a say. See the CONSTITUTION applies to everyone and every portion of the GOVT in the US. Federal and State and according to that Constitution the right to keep and bear shall not be infringed. To me that means that both the Federal Govt and the individual State govt(s) and the local township govts have not the right to pass any law which restricts on my ability to keep and bear. It is the duty of at least one part of the Federal Govt to ensure that the US Constitution is upheld by the laws passed by even the smallest of township govts. It is the duty of the people to ensure that all govts within the US are upholding the US Constitution and any govt they feel is not doing so should be brought to the attention of both the people and that portion of the Federal Govt that is charged with that duty.

What I meant is the gov't/2A give us the right own firearms, but the sates can say what you have to do to own them, and what you can or can't do with them. AFAIK the gov't doesn't have any say on how they do that. I think the 10A protects them, but I could be wrong. Look at N.Y.C. law, handgun permits are hell to get, and even rifles and shotguns have to be registered. Not so out of N.Y.C. D.C. v Heller may have been a win, but DC still puts it's people though the ringer.

So getting back to national reciprocity I think if the gov't say it needs to happen. It's gonna be the states that are gonna fight it, possibly under the 10A. Or the states will decide the rules

[tv_racin_fan]

What I meant is the gov't/2A give us the right own firearms, but the sates can say what you have to do to own them, and what you can or can't do with them. AFAIK the gov't doesn't have any say on how they do that. I think the 10A protects them, but I could be wrong. Look at N.Y.C. law, handgun permits are hell to get, and even rifles and shotguns have to be registered. Not so out of N.Y.C. D.C. v Heller may have been a win, but DC still puts it's people though the ringer.

So getting back to national reciprocity I think if the gov't say it needs to happen. It's gonna be the states that are gonna fight it, possibly under the 10A. Or the states will decide the rules

Oh I fully understand what you are saying but in my opinion both the federal govt and the states are wrong. Seems pretty straight forward to me the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed. BUT it isn't deemed so straight by either the federal or the state govt because that doesn't give them any power vis a vis firearms. Interesting how the SCOTUS ruled that the second amendment defends an individuals right but they still left it open for the states to infringe however the state likes up until the point of a total ban. I often wonder if they can read and comprehend the english language. But then I know they can because they read the first amendment and they seem to have that one sorted out.

My worry with a national reciprocity bill is that the federal govt by demand from the states will come up with some sort of national standard. Last thing the people of Vermont want is to now have to go to some class and pass some test in order to be allowed by their state to carry a firearm (Vermont is a constitutional carry state, no permit no permission needed, the US Constitution serves as their permit). I would love to have South Carolina recognize my permit from Georgia but I do not want Georgia to adopt the same regulations (or stricter) as South Carolina so that will occur.

The US Constitution is binding on both the Federal Govt and the individual state govts as well as the local govts. The 10th amendment gives tons of power to the states as far as laws go BUT it mentions nothing about giving state the power to infringe on the 2nd amendment the right to keep and bear having already been addressed therein.

[downtownv]

Maine and Florida require an approved Basic gun safety and practical pistol course completion certificate for Non Res licenses as well as the knowledge of Their states laws.
I just received these 2 with UT coming..... which was law only course.

[Planedude]

In Texas we shoot a 50 round course of fire at three (20rounds), seven (20 rounds)and fifteen yards (the last 10 rounds). Most folks have passed the test before the fifteen yard mark. Texas requires you use a Auto in your test, if you plan to carry one. You can test with a revolver and only carry the same.
When I took my class, it seemed we spent most of the range time on safety with a loaded gun over marksmanship trainning. I felt that was about right as nobody can learn to shoot well in 50 rounds. The rest of the course was on the law and understanding your resposibility inside it. I will have to renew my CHL this year for another five years. I'll have a 4 hour class and the 50 round shoot to renew.
In Texas we have reciprocity with Utah and many folks were getting an Utah CHL and carrying in Texas because it was cheaper than a Texas CHL. Well, the Texas gov put the kebash on that this year saying a Texas resedent needed a Texas CHL to carry in Texas...
I thought that fair, I stand on the side of proving that you have done some trainning sometime, that proves you were at least taught the most basic of gun safety and Texas law reguarding the CHL. I've met too many boobs that would scare the snot out of me wanting to carry without at least that. Not that they will learn all we need them to know in 8 hours! Again we get a state drivers license only after we prove we know and understand some random points of state law. In Texas enough folks are getting CHLs each year that the fees paid cover the cost of the program as run by the state DPS, so at least we are not a drain on the state budget.
I like the ideal of national reprocity but had never considered the slippery slope issues raised here. I just hate the fact that in Texas we allow New York CHL holders to carry, in keeping with Texas laws, during their visits here. If, however I was to visit New York I could get burned for having my pistol, unloaded and in the trunk of my rental car...
No logic there. There are many other states that Texas reprocity only goes the one way (them visiting us) and a more common ground would be nice. That said I don't want or need to to jump through New York like hoops for my Texas CHL.
Have a good one.

[chrish]

What I meant is the gov't/2A give us the right own firearms, but the sates can say what you have to do to own them, and what you can or can't do with them.

Have to disagree there. 2A says 'keep and bear'. If I understand your comment correctly, you would have to change the 2A to say 'keep', which would then allow the states to regulate 'bear'.

The 2A enumerates, unnecessarily if you believe in Federalist position on the BoR, that you have the right to 'keep and bear', which implies no federal or state law can infringe on that. CCW permits, training to own, # of guns per month, open carry regs, where/when you can carry, etc...all infringe on the 'bear'.

There are already laws, set forth by federal and state, that tell you want you can't DO with a gun (or car, or baseball bat, or a brick) that are totally Constitutional. Those are called murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, brandishing, assault, etc. Beyond those, keeping and bearing are not part of that equation.

Guess I'm a bit strict in my interpretation...probably to a fault.

[Chief Joseph]

JG, you must have very good eyes, but please increase your font size so the rest of us don't have to use a magnifying glass! :nerd:

Hm, new rule the elitists should like. If you can't read this with naked eyes, you're not qualified to carry a gun. In fact, how about anyone needing glasses be considered unfit, since an occasion might arise that they lose their glasses, and it's the "innocents" that must be protected first, not the right to defend yourself. It may sound silly, but once the supposed 2nd Amendment elitists are all in on "requirements" before the right to keep and bear, just about anything could be used.

[jg rider]

Have to disagree there. 2A says 'keep and bear'. If I understand your comment correctly, you would have to change the 2A to say 'keep', which would then allow the states to regulate 'bear'.

The 2A enumerates, unnecessarily if you believe in Federalist position on the BoR, that you have the right to 'keep and bear', which implies no federal or state law can infringe on that. CCW permits, training to own, # of guns per month, open carry regs, where/when you can carry, etc...all infringe on the 'bear'.

There are already laws, set forth by federal and state, that tell you want you can't DO with a gun (or car, or baseball bat, or a brick) that are totally Constitutional. Those are called murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, brandishing, assault, etc. Beyond those, keeping and bearing are not part of that equation.

Guess I'm a bit strict in my interpretation...probably to a fault.

:blushing: Please excuse my choice of words. I know how the 2A reads. I was saving myself some time typing :typing:. I hope most people knew what I meant. But I have difficulty in understanding what you mean in your first paragraph.

In your second paragraph, are you saying you're antifederalist? I'm not understanding. Yes I'm glad that the first 10 articles of the Bill of Rights were added to the constitution. As I understand it, the constitution wasn't very specific. I think if the antifederalist's had won with their Articles of Confederation, we would have the 13 states then and now being sovereign states. Some saying "no guns allowed", printing there own currency, and possibly in this litigious age we'd probably need passports to cross state lines. But hey, I'm not that well knowledgeable on American constitutional history.

As for my post with a now "keep and bear" correction. Isn't that what I said in paragraph 3 :confused:

Enough my head hurts!

:eek: Are we gonna get in trouble for going off topic? :)

[RedRyder]

Since this thread originally started based upon the reciprocity of NM's carry permits, I thought I'd provide a website that sort of explains the NM position on their decisions for reciprocity.

http://www.dps.nm.org/index.php/nm-concealed-carry/reciprocity-agreements/

They are looking for substantial similarity to their own requirements for licensing and if the state's requirements are not similar, they won't grant reciprocity. It goes without saying that there is a lot of quid pro quo going on; therefore if one state does not honor another, then they won't honor them, even if that other state is more stringent.

It would be nice if there were some national standards; however, I have to agree with many that have sounded off on this topic that how do we know those standards would be realistic and not lead to ridiculous abuse by the liberals.

Hope this helps with the original intent of the thread.;)

[wyntrout]

Thanks! When I get a chance, I'll see.

Wynn:)

[jg rider]

Deleted
Now let's get back on topic !

[jg rider]

Since this thread originally started based upon the reciprocity of NM's carry permits, I thought I'd provide a website that sort of explains the NM position on their decisions for reciprocity.

http://www.dps.nm.org/index.php/nm-concealed-carry/reciprocity-agreements/

They are looking for substantial similarity to their own requirements for licensing and if the state's requirements are not similar, they won't grant reciprocity. It goes without saying that there is a lot of quid pro quo going on; therefore if one state does not honor another, then they won't honor them, even if that other state is more stringent.

It would be nice if there were some national standards; however, I have to agree with many that have sounded off on this topic that how do we know those standards would be realistic and not lead to ridiculous abuse by the liberals.

Hope this helps with the original intent of the thread.;)

Thanks for this RedRyder. More or less like Nevada. I like the wording of "static training", "dynamic training"
If I knew about them, I would have used them, instead of "proficiency training", that's gotten me into deep do-do


It would be nice if there were some national standards; however, I have to agree with many that have sounded off on this topic that how do we know those standards would be realistic and not lead to ridiculous abuse by the liberals

I don't know if that would be such an issue. If it's gov't mandated, which I doubt it will be, we hold the house, and hopefully, soon the senate. If it stays with the states, CCWs were issued in states with mostly liberals, example mine. What am I missing?

[Bawanna]

Everyone hold your breath and squint your eyes, I'm calling in an air drop of flame retardant.

As usual it maranque just like on your basic lemon pie. Feel free to waller around in it, eat all you want, it won't harm you other than maybe make you a future Biggest Loser contestant.

If the air drop fails I'm gonna order a group hug! Don't make me go there.

[Tinman507]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r9w_gKbyLdc/TyKHEvSXGbI/AAAAAAAALBk/y4aJ86vmMNs/s640/grouphugeveryone.jpg

[Bawanna]

I like the one in the middle. That's one smokin hot kuola bear. How the heck to you spell kuala, kuola, well heck with it, pretend I'm Jocko and deal with it.

[MikeyKahr]

koala :p O and we're dealing with it....we're hip deep in it!

[jg rider]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-r9w_gKbyLdc/TyKHEvSXGbI/AAAAAAAALBk/y4aJ86vmMNs/s640/grouphugeveryone.jpg

I feel better now that I know there's words like "static" and "dynamic"

Where do you come up with these pictures so fast?

[Tinman507]

Google in the wrong hands is a dangerous tool :D

[jg rider]

Everyone hold your breath and squint your eyes, I'm calling in an air drop of flame retardant.

As usual it maranque just like on your basic lemon pie. Feel free to waller around in it, eat all you want, it won't harm you other than maybe make you a future Biggest Loser contestant.

If the air drop fails I'm gonna order a group hug! Don't make me go there.

Ok I'll delete it

[chrish]

:blushing: Please excuse my choice of words. I know how the 2A reads. I was saving myself some time typing :typing:. I hope most people knew what I meant. But I have difficulty in understanding what you mean in your first paragraph.

In your second paragraph, are you saying you're antifederalist? I'm not understanding. Yes I'm glad that the first 10 articles of the Bill of Rights were added to the constitution. As I understand it, the constitution wasn't very specific. I think if the antifederalist's had won with their Articles of Confederation, we would have the 13 states then and now being sovereign states. Some saying "no guns allowed", printing there own currency, and possibly in this litigious age we'd probably need passports to cross state lines. But hey, I'm not that well knowledgeable on American constitutional history.

As for my post with a now "keep and bear" correction. Isn't that what I said in paragraph 3 :confused:

Enough my head hurts!

:eek: Are we gonna get in trouble for going off topic? :)


just for the record, not trying to be argumentative. and yes, we may well get in trouble :D

in my first paragraph, i was just countering what i thought (maybe incorrectly) you were getting at that while we have the right to own a weapon, the states have a right to legislate how we exercise that right (carry method, hoops to jump thru, reciprocity, etc.) which i believe they do NOT have that legal right. to me, keep and bear means states cannot create gun law period, nada, nothing. i'm aware some (and probably most if you count liberals) do not agree w/ me.

but no, i'm mostly federalist in my personal position on the Constitution and the BoR. that was my point, possibly badly conveyed. its not that i don't agree w/ whats in the BoR, i believe the all to be true and rights that should/do exists without having to be stated. but i feel more strongly that the federalists had a point in not thinking them necessary and that once 'codified' in the Consitution would leave them up to interpretation well beyond the intention. which i think most would agree has happened. maybe not.

i'll have to look back at your paragraph 3, maybe you did and I just got caught up in the first comment and read something into your post that you didn't mean. wouldn't be the first time i opened my mouth and inserted my foot.

i think regardless of whether we are federalist or anti-federalist in our personal positions on the foundation of the country and government, we pretty much all agree it's a royal mess now.

[jg rider]

just for the record, not trying to be argumentative. and yes, we may well get in trouble :D

in my first paragraph, i was just countering what i thought (maybe incorrectly) you were getting at that while we have the right to own a weapon, the states have a right to legislate how we exercise that right (carry method, hoops to jump thru, reciprocity, etc.) which i believe they do NOT have that legal right. to me, keep and bear means states cannot create gun law period, nada, nothing. i'm aware some (and probably most if you count liberals) do not agree w/ me.

but no, i'm mostly federalist in my personal position on the Constitution and the BoR. that was my point, possibly badly conveyed. its not that i don't agree w/ whats in the BoR, i believe the all to be true and rights that should/do exists without having to be stated. but i feel more strongly that the federalists had a point in not thinking them necessary and that once 'codified' in the Consitution would leave them up to interpretation well beyond the intention. which i think most would agree has happened. maybe not.

i'll have to look back at your paragraph 3, maybe you did and I just got caught up in the first comment and read something into your post that you didn't mean. wouldn't be the first time i opened my mouth and inserted my foot.

i think regardless of whether we are federalist or anti-federalist in our personal positions on the foundation of the country and government, we pretty much all agree it's a royal mess now.

I never thought we were arguing

Here's my thoughts
The pro/anti gun thing has been going on longer than I've been alive (that's been a long time) with differing interpretations, and only recently SCOTUS has made a half hearted decision on it. I think it could have been worst if there wasn't a 2A.
Without the 2A the Federal legislative branch could pass a law banning ownership of firearms by all civilians. Right?
Or if not them, the individual state legislative branches could do it for it's citizens. Could we than have some states allowing firearms and some not. What am I missing?

I agree it's a mess

[chrish]

I never thought we were arguing

Here's my thoughts
The pro/anti gun thing has been going on longer than I've been alive (that's been a long time) with differing interpretations, and only recently SCOTUS has made a half hearted decision on it. I think it could have been worst if there wasn't a 2A.
Without the 2A the Federal legislative branch could pass a law banning ownership of firearms by all civilians. Right?
Or if not them, the individual state legislative branches could do it for it's citizens. Could we than have some states allowing firearms and some not. What am I missing?

I agree it's a mess

Definitely either side of this could be argued. And I agree w/ you in what has become reality. I would say that w/o the BoR, given what has become of our federal gov't, we'd maybe be worse off.

But, if the Consitution had been followed, had the BoR not been there in the first place to be debated as to it's meaning, then would Hamilton's belief that the courts would have struck down anything not reserved for the federal gov't as unconstitutional and therefore not legal. We will never know. So, if the Constitution were followed as he believed it should be, the Federal government would have not ability to pass a law against firearm ownership as it was not enumerated in their powers.

Regarding the states, again, given what we see now...I guess yes, they'd be able to be more restrictive. But the intent was, anything not in the Constitution falls to the states and individuals. The founders (both sides) intented and belief was that government CLOSER to the people was more liberty friendly than a federal government. Has that been the case? Depends on the state and locality.

So there's the argument FOR the BoR I guess. But with different variables at play from the get-go, would it have turned out differently...dunno. Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

Yep, i'm an armchair constitutional scholar at best...but way better at it than our president IMO.

[Mr_D]

I agree. All you have to do is see the kooks/nutjobs/dolts walking around at a lot of gun shows to see why I feel that way. You know the type, all cammoed up and carrying more weapons than Carters got pills.
Which is all perfectly legal and allowed under the 2nd Amendment. You might not like it but that's OK, you have a right to disagree (till the Gov't takes it away).

[jg rider]

Definitely either side of this could be argued. And I agree w/ you in what has become reality. I would say that w/o the BoR, given what has become of our federal gov't, we'd maybe be worse off.

But, if the Consitution had been followed, had the BoR not been there in the first place to be debated as to it's meaning, then would Hamilton's belief that the courts would have struck down anything not reserved for the federal gov't as unconstitutional and therefore not legal. We will never know. So, if the Constitution were followed as he believed it should be, the Federal government would have not ability to pass a law against firearm ownership as it was not enumerated in their powers.

Regarding the states, again, given what we see now...I guess yes, they'd be able to be more restrictive. But the intent was, anything not in the Constitution falls to the states and individuals. The founders (both sides) intented and belief was that government CLOSER to the people was more liberty friendly than a federal government. Has that been the case? Depends on the state and locality.

So there's the argument FOR the BoR I guess. But with different variables at play from the get-go, would it have turned out differently...dunno. Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

Yep, i'm an armchair constitutional scholar at best...but way better at it than our president IMO.

I'm not too familiar with Hamilton. Am I correct in remembering that he had some beliefs that the fed. gov't be in control, and not the people in certain things?
Or was I brain washed ?

Also would this have been up for interpretation without the BOR
Wouldn't this have given the fed. gov't the right to make gun laws? I know I'm confused

U.S. Constitution - Legislative Branch, Enumerated and Implied Powers of Congress
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I've tried on two different occasions to read some of the Federalist papers in their original text, especially Madison. But my eyelids would droop. I even got a free audio, that was no help. I'm gonna have to spring for a modern day analysis of them.

I think he wrote that federal judges were appointed for life so that they would be free from political pressures.
Sound familiar?

We need to stop this topic of we're gonna be yelled at :7:

[chrish]

Well, yes and no based on my understanding and reading. Yes, a strong central gov't. No that the federal gov't be in total control. His whole argument was predicated around the need for cohesion between the states and the only way to achieve that was a strong central gov't...i.e. the Articles of Confederation hadn't worked. No from the standpoint of the federal gov't having complete control, it was very much tied to limiting ONLY to those things specifically enumerated. So, based on that, Clause 18 is all laws pertaining to areas already enumerated, which almost NO federal law that exists today passes muster if you ask me.

But were you brainwashed, I doubt it. You can very much make the argument the other way. There is a reason there was such a fierce debate between the two camps. Both were right, both were wrong. I think there are issues, pros, cons w/ each side of the story and much of what Hamilton thought hasn't run it's course and he's probably rolling in his grave.

Like I said, I just find myself feeling more comfortable w/ the Federalist train of thought. But am I going to promote NOT having the BoR given the way things have gone for the last 200 years...no way! So I guess I'm admitting there that they have turned out to be mostly a good thing. But if we COULD have stuck to the Federalist position 100% of the time, I believe we'd be better off today.

I've read good amounts of the Federalist papers, but oh yea, it's slobber on yourself material to try and read...and I can by no means quote you #, paragraph and sentence. Not sure whether you like Glenn Beck, I think he's a bit melodramatic and a bit of a tin foil hat in some areas...but I also believe he has done a pile of good research and analysis on the Constitution and the Federalist papers. If you don't mind him, check out The Original Argument, it's a good read...very enjoyable. It pretty much brings the Federalist papers up to modern language.

I agree, we are WAY off topic here. I think I'm going to take a political break on KahrTalk and go find a gun topic to chat about.

[LCPIWB]

As this thread has not been updated in a while...
NM is adding back receprocity for FL and other states.

[wyntrout]

I saw that at the New Mexico site last week, but Florida hadn't updated their list yet. I just checked Florida's Reciprocity List and it was updated yesterday... yay!

As long as my wife's working, I don't think we'll be driving out to Colorado, but you never know.

Wynn:)

[yqtszhj]

On New Mexico. The way I read their rules you can keep a handgun in your car when traveling through the state anyway. The law is written just like it's your home and allowed. You just cant remove it and carry concealed. It may protect you from being carjacked anyway.

Look at this site:
http://www.usacarry.com/new_mexico_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Automobile carry:
Loaded, concealed firearms may be carried anywhere in a private automobile for self-protection.

Just eat at a drive in when traveling through NM.

[nmkahrshooter]

Going to re-new CCW this weekend. Have to sit in class and then re-qualify with gun. I think they dropped other states is because our requirements are a lot stiffer than most states. On the bright side, when you come to New Mexico at least you know the person carrying actually knows how to fire the weapon!

[TheTman]

Someone asked if we had to take a firearms proficiency test. In Kansas we have to go thru a certain amount of class time going thru the laws, and when it's legal to defend yourself, then we had to shoot 5 rounds one handed at 3 yards, 10 two handed at 5 yards, and another 10 two handed at 7 yards. If 17 of 25 shots hit in the target zone you qualify. And of course you have to load and reload your own weapon.

[RedRyder]

According to NM website regarding reciprocity, these are the values they look for in other states in order to establish if their requirements are essentially similar to NM.

Permits issued locally rather than by the state;
No fingerprint-based background check;
Permits issued to persons under 21 years of age;
Permits issued to resident aliens;
No classroom (static) training required;
No live-fire (dynamic) training required.

There is also a great deal of quid pro quo. You recognize mine or I won't recognize yours going on too.

If we only had some decent lawmakers in Washington that could establish some REASONABLE national or minimum requirements then perhaps that would work but of course that AIN'T gonna happen. :rolleyes: