|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Utah > No more Permit recognition of Utah Permit in Nevada !!!
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > Utah > No more Permit recognition of Utah Permit in Nevada !!!
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
UTOC-45-44 Regular Member 
|
*************** IMPORTANT NOTE FOR UTAH CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT HOLDERS- NO MORE NEVADA CARRY! Nevada authorities have decided that Utah Concealed Weapon Permits will NOT, repeat NOT, be recognized in Nevada effective July 1, 2009. Even though Nevada has recognized Utah permits for several years, they recently reviewed permits from all states and decided that they will no longer recognize permits from Utah or Florida. The excuses given are that Nevada law requires the other states permit requirements to be “substantially similar to” those of Nevada. However, since Utah does not require live fire to get a permit, Nevada will not longer recognize our permit. Florida permits are good for seven years, but Nevada permits are only good for five years, providing the excuse for dropping Florida. The people involved with Nevada permits seem to include a few powerful members of the law enforcement community who are hostile to private citizens self defense rights. Utah Shooting Sports Council and the National Rifle Association will continue to pursue actions to restore recognition of Utah permits by Nevada, but it may take several years and changes to the Nevada laws. Meanwhile, DO NOT CARRY IN NEVADA with a Utah Concealed Weapons Permit! ***************  |
|||||||||
|
ProtectedBy9mm Regular Member 
|
Good thing I have a Florida CFP!  ...sorry Utah CFPers, this includes my wife...  Last edited on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 07:18 pm by ProtectedBy9mm |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
I am in process of writing letters to the major Nevada Chambers of Commerce informing them that while I typically spend at least half a dozen nights in Nevada each year, I will no longer make any unnecessary stops nor spend any discretionary money in the State of Nevada as long as this assault on my freedom continues. Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce 6671 Las Vegas Blvd S Ste 300 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Mesquite Chamber of Commerce 12 W Mesquite Blvd Ste 107 Mesquite, Nevada 89027 Wendover Area Chamber Of Commerce And Tourism P.O. Box 2468 West Wendover, NV 89883 Reno Sparks Chamber of Commerce 1 E 1st St Ste 1600 Reno, NV 89501 Carson City Area Chamber of Commerce 1900 S Carson St Ste 200 Carson City, NV 89701 I urge all of you to do the same. |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
ProtectedBy9mm wrote: Good thing I have a Florida CFP! They are dropping Florida as well. Even though Nevada has recognized Utah permits for several years, they recently reviewed permits from all states and decided that they will no longer recognize permits from Utah or Florida. The excuses given are that Nevada law requires the other states permit requirements to be “substantially similar to” those of Nevada. However, since Utah does not require live fire to get a permit, Nevada will not longer recognize our permit. Florida permits are good for seven years, but Nevada permits are only good for five years, providing the excuse for dropping Florida. |
|||||||||
|
Outsider Regular Member 
|
Also being talked about at Utah Concealed Carry. http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5824 |
|||||||||
|
ProtectedBy9mm Regular Member
|
rpyne wrote: ProtectedBy9mm wrote:Good thing I have a Florida CFP! Yes, hence the emoticon beating his head against the wall.   |
|||||||||
|
SGT Jensen State Researcher 
|
Why is everyone so down, they are forcing you to carry openly in Nevada! We should be celebrating!!!  |
|||||||||
|
Outsider Regular Member
|
I just called Nevada Department of Public Safety and talked to a lady by the name of Guinevere (like King Arther's wife) that deals with reciprocity with other states. She said they are not releasing an official statement but on July 1st the website would be updated to reflect upcoming changes. She said to check the website on July 1st for those changes. Nevada Webpage: http://nvrepository.state.nv.us/Special/CCW_CHANGE.shtml |
|||||||||
|
SGT Jensen State Researcher
|
So..... They plan to surprise everyone to generate revenue through tickets. Got it. |
|||||||||
|
Outsider Regular Member
|
Nevada Cop: "Surprise! You are now a felon and here are some silver bracelets!" |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
SGT Jensen wrote: Why is everyone so down, they are forcing you to carry openly in Nevada! We should be celebrating!!! Yes, but have you looked at their open carry restrictions? Under their definition of "school" you would have a hard time finding a place in some towns that were not a school zone. |
|||||||||
|
Outsider Regular Member
|
The NRA-ILA update came in the e-mail today:Nevada Will No Longer Recognize Utah and Florida Right-to-Carry Permits http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5001 |
|||||||||
|
SGT Jensen State Researcher
|
I love how the NRA calls our permit a "Right-to-Carry permit".  This reminds me... I need to renew my "free speech permit", and my "right to remain silent" permit.  |
|||||||||
|
Outsider Regular Member
|
I didn't notice that before, Sarge. Thanks for pointing that out. Weird... |
|||||||||
|
LovesHisXD45 Regular Member 
|
Dude. This blows! I wonder if there are any incidents on record that would justify the necessity of such a change in their policy. Why is it that politicians make preemptive modifications to legislation with no factual basis for such changes? Do these people sleep better at night now knowing that Utahans and Floridians will not be carrying concealed firearms through their beloved state? Where is the love?! I wonder if any criminals from Utah and Florida, that like to shoot highway patrolmen dead for pulling them over for broken tail lights, will stop carrying concealed weapons now because of this new change? Hmmm. Oh yeah, they will be running scared I'm sure.. Not! But hey.. what do ya do when you economy is in the crapper and you need to generate a new source of revenue?... .Yeah.. I see motive here indeed. The law-abiding citizens caught unawares have jobs and pay taxes and can also pay tickets and forfeit property... Yeah.. I see where this is really coming from. Kevin |
|||||||||
|
utbagpiper State Researcher
|
SGT Jensen wrote: Why is everyone so down, they are forcing you to carry openly in Nevada! We should be celebrating!!! Since when do those in the pro-RKBA community celebrate government FORCING anything on any peaceful, law-abiding citizen?!?!??!!? Look, I understand those who are passionate about OC. What I don't understand is ANY disdain for CC or CCC. When it comes to firearms, I am strictly pro-choice. OC, CC, or CCC; .45 or 9mm, .380, .22 or .44 or anything in between. Indeed, I don't even care whether someone else even wants to carry or even own a gun. I will happily respect the choices of others. All I expect is that my choices will be respected by the law. And the ONLY caveat I have to any of this is that I do get annoyed when those who chose to own guns and those who choose to carry guns, then conduct themselves in an illegal, stupid, unsafe, or even impolite manner thus casting dispersions on gun owners generally. I'd prefer--but cannot and would not mandate into law--that the stupid, ignorant, or rude acquire some intelligence, knowledge, and civility BEFORE buying, owning, and/or carrying guns. Charles |
|||||||||
|
SGT Jensen State Researcher
|
utbagpiper wrote: SGT Jensen wrote:Why is everyone so down, they are forcing you to carry openly in Nevada! We should be celebrating!!! Wow... Way to take my comment literally. You are beginning to seem like the critical father that I never had.  It should be obvious to most here that the State of Nevada is not forcing anyone to do anything. The Legislature in Nevada chose to give the power of permit recognition to a group of people who obviously do not care about armed citizens. We are lucky here in Utah that our Legislature has give the BCI very little power. The people who chose to drop recognition of our permits know that we will not start carrying openly in Nevada. They probably never even considered it! But for just a second, I thought to myself... "Wouldn't it be nice if everyone who used to conceal legally in Nevada, suddenly started carrying openly? That might convince them to reconsider their choices." Most of my comments made here have a little humor attached to them. Anyone who has read this forum for more than a week probably realizes this, and might also realize that I hate restrictions. Do a little searching and you will find that I want everyone to have the choice to do whatever the hell they please with a firearm. Former Felons? Hell yeah!! If they're not locked up, give them Liberty! The fact remains, however, that this happened in NEVADA! A state where our voices are irrelevant. This was an attack by a small group of men that decided to limit the freedoms of a larger group of men. You could be critical of these obviously anti-freedom men, but no, you chose to attack me. AGAIN! utbagpiper wrote: And the ONLY caveat I have to any of this is that I do get annoyed when those who chose to own guns and those who choose to carry guns, then conduct themselves in an illegal, stupid, unsafe, or even impolite manner thus casting dispersions on gun owners generally. Why don't you come clean Charles? I have a lot of respect for the hard work you do. You were paving the way for my freedoms long before I ever thought to exercise them. But it is becoming clear to me that I am slowly becoming a thorn in your side. Why is that? Does my choice to push the limits of open carry threaten you? Are you afraid that I will somehow undo all of your hard work? |
|||||||||
|
b1ack5mith Regular Member 
|
SGT Jensen wrote: utbagpiper wrote:SGT Jensen wrote:Why is everyone so down, they are forcing you to carry openly in Nevada! We should be celebrating!!! I agree 100% with Sgt. Jensen (it's funny how alike he is with our family, we decided to adopt him. whether he likes it or not.) It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, that felons are barred from owning firearms. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that felons can not own firearms... Many felons did not commit crimes that even deserve the title "felon". "the RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed" sounds to me like EVERYONE has EVERY right to keep and bear arms, as long as they are LEGAL RESIDENTS. My cousin mike is a christian pastor, really sweet guy... he made a dry ice bomb on 4th of july, and was sent to PRISON for 2 years... for putting water and dry ice in a bottle... on FOURTH of july... and then he was considered a felon for 2 years (he got it taken off though) but I think that it is ridiculous at the charges people get from things... a freakin dry ice bomb... big freakin deal! Kinda off subject, but still pertained to gun rights. |
|||||||||
|
UTOC-45-44 Regular Member
|
http://www.armedandsafe.com/default.html Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) Permit Training Next classes: Reno Sat June 27th-9am to 5pm New/ 1-5 Renewal ( NV + UT) Sacramento Sunday June 28th- noon to 4 or 5pm (UT ONLY) Reno Sunday July 5th (Noon-8pm NEW/ 4-8pm Renewals NV + UT) WCSO is NOT open Friday, July 3rd, WCSO WILL BE open Mon. July 6th (8am-4:30pm) *See additional class dates below or call for private appointment
Armed and Safe Firearms Training in Reno is proud to offer concealed weapons permit instruction. All U.S. citizens who can legally possess a firearm are eligible for the Nevada, Utah and Florida permits, allowing for carry in over 30 states. They SHALL be issued a Nevada and/or Utah permit upon completion of the class and background check. Nevada's permit must be applied for in-person, weekdays (private all-inclusive one-day class and application to the SO can be scheduled). Utah and Florida are mail-in applications. Our CCW permit class for Nevada/Utah is one day, approximately 8 hours. UTAH only class and CCW PERMIT RENEWALS (every 5 years) are 4 hours in length. All CCW classes include the Utah CCW signoff (no extra fee to us). CHANGE effective July 1st, 2009: NV will NO LONGER recognize the UT CCW permit for carry in NV. To reserve a space in a scheduled class ( see dates below) OR Schedule a private class, please call(775)560-2741, email: armedandsafe@sbcglobal.net, or fill out the brief form through the CONTACT US tab ( above). No payment due until the day of class and we NEVER cancel scheduled classes (no minimum number required, but sometimes classes fill, so reserve your spot today!) Reno classes: Summer 2009 Patriot Special (for those who love this country) $60 men and women. Range fees and all materials are included, BYO ammo. Due to the shortage of ammo, we have ammo available for class if you can't find it. .45ACP .40S&W 38Special 9mmLuger .380Auto Private classes start at $150, special pricing for groups, based on California classes are $80(additional fees for range, fingerprinting and other services, optional) States that recognize the Nevada and/or Utah permits (some require residency): Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming. The class covers: Gun safety and handling, Marksmanship, Cleaning, Safe storage, Transportation, Holster Choice, Retention/Defensive techniques, Concealed-carry techniques, Federal, State(s) and Local laws, Legal and Ethical issues surrounding use of Deadly Force, what to expect/say during and after self-defense, Civil Liability risk, Reciprocity state-to-state, Resources for up-to-date information and Permit application procedures. Our Reno classroom is in Scheel's so if you have your own gun(s), bring (or buy at Scheel's) 30 rounds of new factory ammo for each semi-automatic, unlimited number. Nevada's permit requires qualification specific to make, model and caliber (not serial number). If you buy a new semi-automatic later, you can add it for free dring any shoot portion of our classes (expect to pay your range fee and tip for any gun additions). If you shoot any revolver ( 25 rounds) you can carry ANY revolver. We will supply everything you need to complete the class: classroom guns (if needed), eye and hearing protection, targets and classroom supplies. You are welcome to bring your own eye and hearing protection. Course of Fire is 25-30 rounds at a full silhouette target with all rounds kept in the 8-9-10 rings ( and 8x11 inch area - standard piece of paper) at 7 yards ( 21 feet = self-defense distance). Our instructor to student ratio is 1:2 on the firing line, 1:1 when needed. We have a perfect safety record! You must be 21 to apply for a CCW, but those under 18 are welcome to take the class with special permission of instructors - handguns are generally not appropriate for children under 12 years of age. Minors must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. (Documentation will be required. Call for details.) Reno Classes $60 Sat June 27th Sunday, July 5th ( noon-8pm NEW/4-8 renew) Sat July 18th Tuesday June 16 Wed. June 17th ( 5-9pm) Sat July 25th Sat August 8th Special SHOW class Sat. August 15th (5:30-8:30pm* UT ONLY) Big Reno Show Sunday August 16th Sat August 29th Sat September 12th Sat September 26th Sat October 10th Sat October 24th Sat November 7th Sat November 21st Sat December 5th Sat December 19th More to come. Come to the next Tea Party to promote freedom, liberty, and the constitution. July 4th. http://www.angerisbrewing.com California Multi-state permit Classes $100* includes fingerprinting Notary and Photo Available (Not valid for carrying concealed in CA) Sacramento Sunday June 28th Noon -4pm Rancho Cordova Shooting Center South Lake Tahoe June 30th5pm - 8pm Location TBA with confirmation *+$25 Range if needed (UT classes in CA only) Last edited on Tue Jun 30th, 2009 02:32 pm by UTOC-45-44 |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
Sorry, I'm not going to take their bait and put MORE money into the Nevada coffers because they decided to restrict my rights. Quite the opposite, I'll just avoid spending time and money in Nevada. edit: spelling Last edited on Tue Jun 30th, 2009 04:34 pm by rpyne |
|||||||||
|
gunsfreak4791 Regular Member
|
I agree not putting any more money into their State. I will go to Montanna if I want to experience NV. |
|||||||||
|
b1ack5mith Regular Member
|
yeah, screw NV anyway, i dont know WHO would live there (well becides for the tahoe area, thats understandably a nice place to live) but if i had to choose between CA and NV, id pick alaska  |
|||||||||
|
irish Regular Member 
|
Florida & Utah are no longer listed. http://www.nvrepository.state.nv.us/ccw_changes.shtml Out of State Carry Concealed Weapon Permit Recognition Effective Oct 1, 2007 In accordance with NRS 202.3689 the State of Nevada will recognize the following States' CCW permit holders: Alaska Arkansas Kansas Louisiana Michigan (added May 9, 2008) Missouri Nebraska Ohio (added July 1, 2009) Tennessee West Virginia (added July 1, 2009) This law allows holders of valid permits from these states to carry a concealed weapon while in the State of Nevada. The permit must be in the possession of the issuee at all times while carrying a firearm. CCW Prohibited Locations defined by NRS 202.3673 Utah no longer lists Nevada: http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FAQother.html Florida no longer accepts Nevada either: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html From FL website: This list was last updated on July 1, 2009, when the State of Nevada was removed from the reciprocity list. Authorities in Nevada notified the Division of Licensing that as of that date, Nevada would no longer honor Florida concealed weapon licenses. Therefore, in accordance with the reciprocity provision set forth in section 790.015, Florida Statutes, Florida could no longer honor concealed weapon licenses issued by the State of Nevada. |
|||||||||
|
b1ack5mith Regular Member
|
funny list... the nearest state on that list is like 1000 miles away! |
|||||||||
|
utbagpiper State Researcher
|
SGT Jensen wrote:
So, your comments get to have a little humor to them, but if I counter by pointing out the problems in that humor I'm an over-bearing father? You know, I've had a permit for nearly 5 years now. And yet I still devoted a lot of time the last 3 years to get permit-free car carry (concealed and loaded) passed into law. It gains me NOTHING personally except knowing my State is moving--however slowly--ever closer to actually, fully respecting the rights of adults to be peacefully armed in public. What annoys me is people who don't like guns trying to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to own or carry a gun. I think what annoys me even more, however, is someone who "gets it" on owning guns, but develops some kind of attitude about where or how I should carry and your comment supporting the loss of a legal option touched that nerve. I am also annoyed by those who enjoy their rights in such a way as to foster bad PR for the rest of us. Idiots who shoot road signs are NOT our friends. SuperDell has long since crossed the line from misunderstood supporter of RKBA to liability who refuses to conduct himself within any constraints of civil society. No, I don't think you are going to undo my (and many others' ) hard work. But it might be nice if you'd give a half moment's thought to how to pick your battles and whether any of them do carry a higher risk to gain ratio than might be prudent to engage if not necessary. And I'd like to think you respect my rights and choices at least as much as you'd like me to support your rights and choices. Charles |
|||||||||
|
SGT Jensen State Researcher
|
utbagpiper wrote: So, your comments get to have a little humor to them, but if I counter by pointing out the problems in that humor I'm an over-bearing father? No, I said that your being critical of my comments are liken to a critical father. I made a half-joking comment, and you chose to criticize me as if I were hostile towards concealed carry. utbagpiper wrote: You know, I've had a permit for nearly 5 years now. And yet I still devoted a lot of time the last 3 years to get permit-free car carry (concealed and loaded) passed into law. It gains me NOTHING personally except knowing my State is moving--however slowly--ever closer to actually, fully respecting the rights of adults to be peacefully armed in public. I too have had my permit for close to 5 years, and I wish that I did not need to renew it. I do not like that we have restrictions on how or where we choose to carry a firearm. But for you to say that loosening Utah laws gains you nothing, since you are already permitted, sound a bit off to me. I would think that not having to pay for a right, or get the States permission would mean everything, but maybe that is just me. utbagpiper wrote: What annoys me is people who don't like guns trying to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to own or carry a gun. You mean like a legislature? Or a Department of Public Safety? utbagpiper wrote: I think what annoys me even more, however, is someone who "gets it" on owning guns, but develops some kind of attitude about where or how I should carry and your comment supporting the loss of a legal option touched that nerve. I understand that we all have lost an option when it comes to carrying in Nevada. I was simply pointing out that we are chatting on a forum that advocates the carry of firearms openly, and that we still have that option in Nevada. An option that happens to be less restrictive than here in our own State. utbagpiper wrote: I am also annoyed by those who enjoy their rights in such a way as to foster bad PR for the rest of us. Idiots who shoot road signs are NOT our friends. SuperDell has long since crossed the line from misunderstood supporter of RKBA to liability who refuses to conduct himself within any constraints of civil society. No matter what the right may be, there will always be "that one guy" that makes the rest look bad. I can agree that people who shoot road signs are idiots, but I won't go as far as to say that they're not our friends. Their actions may hinder our progression, but I am willing to bet we all have a buddy that has done something stupid, or perhaps illegal with a firearm. Again with SUPERDELL? Just because the news picks on him, and he has a zany way of projecting himself, means he is a liability to "the cause"? It is easy to judge somebody based on what the news tell you about them. I suggest that people should get to know a person before they judge somebody based on what they read or see on TV. utbagpiper wrote: No, I don't think you are going to undo my (and many others' ) hard work. But it might be nice if you'd give a half moment's thought to how to pick your battles and whether any of them do carry a higher risk to gain ratio than might be prudent to engage if not necessary. I recognize that others are working hard as well, but this is not about them. What battles have I picked? I simply commented that people should exercise their right to carry openly in Nevada, since some unfriendly men decided that they don't want us concealing in their state. I noticed that you highlighted YOU (meaning me), so would you care to clarify who you are concerned about? Or should I continue to receive the criticism since I am the mouth piece of group? utbagpiper wrote: And I'd like to think you respect my rights and choices at least as much as you'd like me to support your rights and choices. YOUR rights? Is that what this is about? Anything that I say here is directed at YOU? They are OUR rights Charles. I support EVERYONE'S rights and choices they make. The fact remains that WE have been denied a choice by The Nevada Department of Public Safety, not me. How dare I suggest that a group of "open carriers" do just that in a state that chooses not to allow us to cover our sidearms? Do you have a better suggestion? |
|||||||||
|
utbagpiper State Researcher
|
SGT Jensen wrote: Sgt., Let me know when your emotions have cooled enough to have a rational discussion. You clearly missed the "...except..." my statement about permitless car carry. Just a small matter that completely changes the meaning of what you've chosen to quote out of context. Look, you may have intended the "they just make us OC" as joking. It came across to me as though you were celebrating the fact that we had lost an option in how we might choose to legally carry our guns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that "dancing bananas" were to indicate joy and celebration, while "winking faces" were how we indicated some degree of sacrcasm. THAT is what set me off. I'm happy for you and others to OC anywhere you want. I join you in some cases and defend your right to choose your carry mode in virtually all cases insofar as the law goes, with some exceptions insofar as etiquette or manners are concerned. I am NOT happy about anyone who OCs who is hostile to CC or CCC. I don't care for those who CC who are hostile toward OC or CCC. We've got enough enemies who would love to just disarm us that we don't need to be quibbling among ourselves over whether or not OC or CC or CCC is the only right way to carry. Carry as you see fit. Observe the laws of the land and of common courtesy and etiquette. And let's stop thinking we need to defend the indefensible. Shooting road signs is not merely stupid and those who do it are NOT friends of RKBA. The conduct of one idiot shooting signs or power transformers, etc does us and our cause more damage than 10 hardworking activists can make up. NOBODY I know has ever done such a thing--or at least they've known better than to admit such moronic, criminal, counterproductive conduct to me. They KNOW how I'd respond and some mamby-pamby misapplication of Christian teachings on judgement is NOT how I respond to such things. I am NOT PC and not afraid to call a spade a spade. A guy who does nearly 50 mph in a 25 mph residential area is not wacky or misunderstood. He is a menace to society and it is a shame our traffic laws don't properly account for and punish such gross negligence. Mouth breating, knuckle dragging morons who shoot road signs are NOT our friends. They DESERVE to be judged, to be called out, to be punished. Those who poach game (excepting perhaps someone truly hungry who shoots a non-trophy animal purely for food) are not our friends and they deserve the harsh punishments the law metes out to them. I won't condemn someone to eternal hell. THAT is the judgement Christ spoke of. But I am not afraid to call criminals and morons exactly what they are. Charles |
|||||||||
|
KalelIsbell Regular Member 
|
rpyne wrote: Sorry, I'm not going to take their bait and put MORE money into the Nevada coffers because they decided to restrict my rights. Quite the opposite, I'll just avoid spending time and money in Nevada. Diito I will never spend my money there again, I guess i will never get to go to lake Tahoe or Vegas again.. I dont know how much longer the government thinks they can continue to assault our freedoms; and WE THE PEOPLE will tolerate this.. NOT ALL OF US ARE SHEEP   |
|||||||||
|
SGT Jensen State Researcher
|
utbagpiper wrote: Sgt., Let me know when your emotions have cooled enough to have a rational discussion. You clearly missed the "...except..." my statement about permitless car carry. Just a small matter that completely changes the meaning of what you've chosen to quote out of context. So now you presume to know the meaning of what I chose to quote? I took nothing out of context. Your post, in its all mighty entirety, was quoted in my reply. Again what you said is... utbagpiper wrote: You know, I've had a permit for nearly 5 years now. And yet I still devoted a lot of time the last 3 years to get permit-free car carry (concealed and loaded) passed into law. It gains me NOTHING personally except knowing my State is moving--however slowly--ever closer to actually, fully respecting the rights of adults to be peacefully armed in public. As I read it, you gained nothing personally from your work, with the exception of "knowing my State is moving--however slowly--ever closer to actually, fully respecting the rights of adults to be peacefully armed in public." Please correct me if I am wrong, but to me this comment makes it sound like you are perfectly content with the current system of permitted carry, but you still want to make it better for others whether or not it personally benefits you. utbagpiper wrote: Look, you may have intended the "they just make us OC" as joking. It came across to me as though you were celebrating the fact that we had lost an option in how we might choose to legally carry our guns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that "dancing bananas" were to indicate joy and celebration, while "winking faces" were how we indicated some degree of sacrcasm. You are right about the "winking face". I made no attempt to outline my sarcasm, and I got called out on it. A simple mistake of online courtesy that I will try to avoid in the future. HOWEVER, as someone who chooses to avoid concealment at all costs, I was making a true statement about how I personally felt. I do feel bad for everyone who lost the option to conceal in Nevada, but their right to self defense has not been taken away. utbagpiper wrote: THAT is what set me off. I'm happy for you and others to OC anywhere you want. I join you in some cases and defend your right to choose your carry mode in virtually all cases insofar as the law goes, with some exceptions insofar as etiquette or manners are concerned. I thank you for joining us and helping us defend our rights, and I always will. But the law speaks nothing of "etiquette or manners". I know that I am part of a very small minority here, but if something has not been deemed unlawful, then I will try not to criticize others for doing something that may not be socially acceptable. utbagpiper wrote: I am NOT happy about anyone who OCs who is hostile to CC or CCC. I don't care for those who CC who are hostile toward OC or CCC. I too am not happy about these disagreements within the firearms community. While I choose to avoid concealment at all times, I recognize that others try to avoid "printing" or "open carry" at all costs. If that's what they want, then I will support it, and I will not criticize somebody base on their method of carry. It you want to put a ten inch revolver in you waistband, with the barrel hanging out of your opened zipper, then I will support that decision. But who decides what is "common courtesy" or "etiquette"? Obviously we have differing opinions, so what, the majority rules? utbagpiper wrote: And let's stop thinking we need to defend the indefensible. Shooting road signs is not merely stupid and those who do it are NOT friends of RKBA. The conduct of one idiot shooting signs or power transformers, etc does us and our cause more damage than 10 hardworking activists can make up. NOBODY I know has ever done such a thing--or at least they've known better than to admit such moronic, criminal, counterproductive conduct to me. They KNOW how I'd respond and some mamby-pamby misapplication of Christian teachings on judgement is NOT how I respond to such things. I am NOT PC and not afraid to call a spade a spade. I never said that shooting signs was not a dumb thing to do. I am a firm believer in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Every time I see a bullet riddled sign, I shake my head in disgust. But I choose not to judge them based on their actions, as it is not my place to do so. Some of the biggest enemies to the RKBA cause are our fellow gun owners. But you can't convince somebody to accept something out of their status quo with harsh criticism. This is why you often see me posting in defense of those who are most critical of our actions. Remember how many friends thoughtpolice had? utbagpiper wrote: A guy who does nearly 50 mph in a 25 mph residential area is not wacky or misunderstood. He is a menace to society and it is a shame our traffic laws don't properly account for and punish such gross negligence. Mouth breating, knuckle dragging morons who shoot road signs are NOT our friends. They DESERVE to be judged, to be called out, to be punished. Those who poach game (excepting perhaps someone truly hungry who shoots a non-trophy animal purely for food) are not our friends and they deserve the harsh punishments the law metes out to them. Dell is a guy who happens to be a firearms enthusiast, who broke the law with his car. If he were driving normally, his "brandishing charge" would have never been an issue. But, as it seems, his driving habits seem to always predicate his "firearm violations". Yet, those in the media denounce him as unfit to be near a weapon, and seem to miss the point that the most dangerous weapon in his possession was his vehicle. They choose to vilify him more about firearms than his driving habits, but at least you seem to get it. utbagpiper wrote: I won't condemn someone to eternal hell. THAT is the judgement Christ spoke of. So as long as we don't cast someone to hell, then we are free to judge our fellow man as we please? Well I can't say I disagree, but I choose to leave judgement to the legal system, as unfair as it may be. |
|||||||||
|
utbagpiper State Researcher
|
SGT Jensen wrote:
Sgt. First, let me apologize. As I wrote above, I interpreted your original post as celebrating the loss of a legal option and I reacted--harshly, and more than once--within that context. It is clear that is not what you really intended and so I ask you to please forgive my harsh reaction. On the subject of law vs manners, I'd urge you to reconsider your position. The only way large groups of people can live together in peace is for there to be some limits on conduct coupled with some degree of tolerance. Law is the last, most harsh and unbending method to dictate what conduct must be controlled and what conduct must be accepted. I personally believe that society is generally better served when conduct and tolerance are dictated first and most often by generally recognized notions of manners, civility, and propriety within the community being affected. Rather than a church feeling a need to have force of law to ban guns in virtually all cases, I believe we'd be far better off if social convention and civility were adhered to in such a way as people choosing not to OC guns into a church and to be very careful not to make church a place where others would be forced to deal with phobias or other issues surrounding guns. Those who really felt a need or strong desire to have a gun could have one, legally, and would choose to be discrete if they attended a church where there was a reasonable likelihood of an open gun being a distraction to the worship service or spri Employment and other discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc is offensive to most people. So I believe social and economic pressure would properly limit such conduct almost as well as current laws do, but without so many of the detrimental effects these laws impose as "side effects." Most alcohol and drug laws can be traced, at least partly I believe, to the failure of those who imbibe to heed and social restraints. Holland is apparently looking to tighten up some of their very loose drug and prostitution laws due to the problems caused by public use of such things. I could go on with other examples. But the point is, a society that fails to properly shape and define acceptable conduct and tolerance via social convention, manners, social approval and disapproval, and so on will soon find itself required to force conduct and tolerance via law. And once a law is written, common sense, exceptions, and flexibility are almost always lost. Charles |
|||||||||
|
combatcarry Regular Member
|
utbagpiper said: Rather than a church feeling a need to have force of law to ban guns in virtually all cases, I believe we'd be far better off if social convention and civility were adhered to in such a way as people choosing not to OC guns into a church and to be very careful not to make church a place where others would be forced to deal with phobias or other issues surrounding guns. Those who really felt a need or strong desire to have a gun could have one, legally, and would choose to be discrete if they attended a church where there was a reasonable likelihood of an open gun being a distraction to the worship service or spri I honestly don't know what your point is. Are you implying that the current law came to be because of a problem with open carry in church? If it was (or is) a problem I've never heard it. I would think church leadership could easily deal with any open carrier if they chose to. In the vast majority of church organizations across this state people can (and do) legally choose to carry discretely while attending church. Last edited on Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 10:26 pm by combatcarry |
|||||||||
|
utbagpiper State Researcher
|
combatcarry wrote:
Was my point clear via the other examples I used? I had only a single point and it remained constant throughout the examples. I believe the fact that most people choose to voluntarily respect the wishes of churches, of private home owners, etc is one reason we retain the default value of carrying into churches and private homes being legal (rather than having to assume it is illegal until given explicit permission to carry). We should carefully consider how our actions affect our position. It is one thing to educate and inform. It is another to push so much that others start demanding laws to restrain our conduct. In other States, laws explicitly allow private business to ban private guns, for example. Violation of such policies become criminal matters relative to guns rather than merely civil matters. In many States there are bans on carrying into certain kinds of businesses, most often those that serve alcohol. The example of guns in churches may have been less than idea. While it is perfectly legal to drink while carrying a gun in Utah, most gun owners frown on doing so. This is an example of social pressure at work. I'd hate to see a law passed to ban carrying while drinking, not to mention banning the carrying of guns into anyplace that serves alcohol even if you are not going to drink. These laws exist in other States. Are we not prudent to use a little social pressure to help prevent the kinds of incidents that might lead to support for such laws here? Charles |
|||||||||
|
SGT Jensen State Researcher
|
utbagpiper wrote: Sgt. Apology accepted.  I have tried to remain civil in my posts, but if you felt that I personally attacked you, then I too apologize.utbagpiper wrote: On the subject of law vs manners, I'd urge you to reconsider your position. The only way large groups of people can live together in peace is for there to be some limits on conduct coupled with some degree of tolerance. Law is the last, most harsh and unbending method to dictate what conduct must be controlled and what conduct must be accepted. My position is non-negotiable, but I believe that you may be misled on my beliefs. I understand that etiquette, manners, and common sense should be applied when conducting somethig as taboo as open carry, but my point is this. There are no laws that define these guidelines, and common sense is not common. I may not participate in some of the outlandish activities that can be read about here, but I will not criticize others who choose to do something that is not prohibited by law. The law as we have it here permits a lot of activity that is prohibited in other states. If somebody asks about a particular law, I will tell them how it is, without my opinion clouding the response. Take alcohol for example. I have openly carried into a bar, and even had a few beers while armed. Was it legal? Yes. Was it smart? Probably not. Do I regret it? No. I learned from the experience, and I will likely choose to disarm the next time I decide to drink. But if somebody asks if is it legal to carry in a bar and have a drink, my simple response will be yes. This does not mean that I actively seek "loopholes" in the law that allows me to push the social norm. I simply have tried a few things that others will not. When somebody seeks an opinion, I can share with them my experiences, and advise them that anything they do may have a completely opposite reaction than what has happened to me. Everyone is unique, and should decide for themselves what they should or should not do. My decisions are not made in haste, they are well thought out and I take the necessary precautions to avoid trouble. As far as other peoples conduct on this forum goes, I have read many posts here that made me cringe. Most of you know what I mean. The guys that "should not even own guns" is what most people call them. But manners and etiquette aside, the posters broke no laws. My personal beliefs prevent me from criticizing others for lawful activity. I don't know how many people believe that my actions are a bit "out there', but I feel that my conduct is well behaved. As far as my appearance is concerned, proof can be found on this website. Nearly all of my photos here show me dressed professionally, usually in a polo shirt and blue jeans. While I have experimented with tactical thigh holsters, or matching GLOCKS on each hip, my method of carry is usually just a single compact GLOCK carried with active retention. I believe that everyone should dress nice, and use a retention holster, but I will not advocate it here. I have had only one encounter with law enforcement that lasted more than a minute. My wife was by my side, and I posted about the encounter here for everyone to read and possibly learn from. I was polite, but refused any form of identification. I have never been disarmed, I have been asked to leave only one business (Costco) and I've never had anyone freak out in my presence, claiming that the world was coming to an end because of my conduct. I guess what I am saying is that I cannot offer an opinion on something if I have not personally tried it. A few people have asked about openly carrying a long arm, but nobody ever seems to try it. So can anybody guess what Kevin might try when he gets home? After carrying an M16 here every day for close to a year, it should be a cake walk at home just once, right? Sorry for the long read. Iraq is boring, there is nothing to do and I am not tired. (I posted this at 2:30 in the morning) |
|||||||||
|
utbagpiper State Researcher
|
Thank you for accepting my apology. SGT Jensen wrote:
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. As I hope I made clear, I believe it is incumbent upon us--as a gun owning/carrying community--to help set and define what constitutes socially acceptable behavior so that larger society does not impose their views of proper conduct on us via force of law. Ironically, as a teatotaler, I've been among the most vocal in defending the right of mature adults to enjoy a modest amount of alcohol while legally armed. That has been done mostly in the context of eating a meal in a regular restaurant. But I would certainly encourage anyone who is going to imbibe while armed to be extra cautious that he remain well below the legal limit, and never give any reason to even think he may be drinking to excess, and to avoid any situation where he could possibly have his judgement called into question. Indeed, as a matter of prudence, I think a lot of bars should simply be avoided, especially the later the hour gets. Similarly, I believe that proper social conduct when asked to leave a private business is to delay doing so no longer than is needed to make sure the request comes from a person high enough in authority to actually be issuing it (for that store at that moment), and to get a name/title for followup later. At this time at least, I think unless someone knows that an openly carried gun will not be distressing to the participants, that funerals, weddings, christenings, and similar "church type" of events (and church itself) are probably places where CC is preferred to OC. I think that the wishes of family members and friends who invite us into their homes ought to be respected via at least keeping guns out of sight (don't ask, don't tell) if there are issues rather than making a fuss over OC. While a host has far greater liberty in his own home, I think even there a certain level of concern and respect for the feelings of others ought to be maintained. I believe that those who choose to OC ought to give some thought to their dress and overall comportment. I say this recognizing that what is proper dress when running into Home Depot may be a bit different than what is appropriae at a sit down restraurant. I believe those who choose to carry a gun in any manner--but especially those who are visibly armed--should go above and beyond to be polite and pleasant to those around them and to avoid ever being in a situation to need their guns. This includes not only heightened situational awareness, but also civility and good manners, deference and humility. I may be faster with some criticism than I should be. But I try not to go overboard with it. And neither will I have an excess of sympathy for those who make no attempt to present themselves well and then complain about a negative reception. As an analogy, it is probably bad form to criticize a rape victim for walking down dark allies alone at night. But it seems perfectly reasonable when discussing safety with young ladies to mention high risk conduct--that while legal--could be avoided so as to minimize the odds of being a victim. We in the RKBA community are fond of saying that "An armed societ is a polite society." Unless that is just an empty soundbite, I think it is up to us to not only abide the generally accepted norms of polite, upstanding behavior in terms of dress, speech, and conduct, but to also help define what should be the generally accepted norms of conduct and comportment relative to the lawful carrying of arms. Simply put, if we refuse to help define what constitutes socially acceptable conduct when it comes to carrying guns, if we advocate that any conduct that is legal must be tolerated we are likely to see increased support for laws to limit conduct to what larger society thinks they want to tolerate. I think we'll be far better off to help define what should be socially acceptable conduct involving the lawful carrying of guns and what conduct falls outside those limits even though it may be lawful. I'd apologize for being verbose, but it sounds like you need some good reading material anyway. Be safe over there. And thank you for your service. Charles |
|||||||||
|
combatcarry Regular Member
|
Charles, I agree with you entirely. I also agree that the church example was less than ideal. I see places of worship as no different than any other private property. People can be told to leave according to Utah law (for any reason). If anyone refuses to leave they can be slapped with a trespassing charge. This seems more than adequate to me. That being said we should respect the wishes of the property owners. If they make it perfectly clear that guns are not allowed (such as in LDS houses of worship) it is our obligation to comply. Should we refuse to comply simply because the penalty is only an infraction? I don't believe so. Back on topic. I work in Nevada enough that I have a permit issued by Clark County. The only inconvenience to me is I'm back to carrying guns I've qualified with and registered in Clark County. It is always an option for Utah residents to get a Nevada permit. As S. Jensen suggested you can also Open Carry. Although I'd be terrified of LVMPD throwing my face into the asphalt if I was openly carrying in the more "touristy" areas of Vegas. Here is an example why I wouldn't carry on the strip: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum36/27721.html Last edited on Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 01:38 am by combatcarry |
|||||||||
|
SGT Jensen State Researcher
|
utbagpiper wrote: I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. I can agree to that. utbagpiper wrote: As I hope I made clear, I believe it is incumbent upon us--as a gun owning/carrying community--to help set and define what constitutes socially acceptable behavior so that larger society does not impose their views of proper conduct on us via force of law. If I have learned anything from my time in the Army, it is that we should lead by example. If people choose to learn from us, they have a variety of experiences to learn from. Some experience may be from applying the law, some may be from legislative activism, and some may be from real world experience. I am not a lawyer, and I don't know the first thing about changing a lawmakers mind, but I am willing to put my neck on the line and risk jail time for a cause I believe in. (I've also learned, in the Army, that we waste a $hit ton of money too, but that is for a different forum.) My experiences may be less than ideal to others, or perhaps pushing it too far, but they are still experiences. And mostly positive ones at that. A lot of peope can armchair quarterback online, but when it comes to asking about something that might be viewed as iffy, I just might have an experience to help somebody make an informed decision on what they should do. |
|||||||||
|
SGT Jensen State Researcher
|
KalelIsbell wrote: rpyne wrote:Sorry, I'm not going to take their bait and put MORE money into the Nevada coffers because they decided to restrict my rights. Quite the opposite, I'll just avoid spending time and money in Nevada. Something has been bugging me since this topic started, and I have noticed it on many forums. This is a post from another forum member... What is the problem with Nevada. I always thought of them as a friend of Utahs. Now they are not honoring our concealed permits? Live fire exercises must have been ammendment 2A. Is the next step to have a shooting test when purchasing a firearm? What retards Now, I am not faulting the OP, or any other that share his belief, but I wanted to let everyone know how permit recognition works in Nevada. Unlike our State Legislature which gives our BCI very little power, Nevada's Legislature gave The Nevada Department of Public Safety the authority to decide which permits are recognized in their state. NRS 202.3689 Department to prepare list of states that meet certain requirements concerning permits; Department to provide copy of list to law enforcement agencies in this State; Department to make list available to public. NRS 202.3653 Definitions. As used in NRS 202.3653 to 202.369, inclusive, unless the context otherwise requires: They claim they dumped us due to the fact that they require a live fire, but we do not. However, I cannot find a live fire requirement codified in Nevada Law. NRS 202.3657 Application for permit; eligibility; denial or revocation of permit. However, this doozy of a law would seem to give the Department nearly unlimited power concerning the issue, and they could interpret "demonstrates competence" to mean anything they want. NRS 202.369 Regulations. There was even this message in the alert from The Utah Shooting sports Council that stated the following... The people involved with Nevada permits seem to include a few powerful members of the law enforcement community who are hostile to private citizens self defense rights. I looked through the Nevada Code concerning the DPS, but it does not mention anything about concealed firearm permits. Our State code authorizes no more than five members to sit on Concealed Weapon Review Board. So let's assume that the director of the Nevada Department of Public Safety has a similar board. This would mean that five or six guys just decided that 157,000 or so Utah permits are no longer valid in Nevada. Not the State, not the State Legislature, but just a handful of men who are hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. Who knows how many Florida permits are currently valid, but they were dumped too. I have also heard that Utah should return the favor and not recognize Nevada permits. I would like to point out that Utah is the only state in this mess that did not take a step backwards. Nevada dumped recognition of Florida and Utah. Florida, in turn, dumped recognition with Nevada. Our laws, however, do not require these silly agreements, so we remain one of the few states that recognize any permit, regardless of the state or county it was issued in. I just thought I would share this so people would know where to place the blame. You can be mad at the DPS for dumping Utah and Florida, or you can be mad at the Nevada law makers for giving the DPS nearly unlimited power to regulate permits. |
|||||||||
|
utbagpiper State Researcher
|
combatcarry wrote: Charles, We are mostly agreed then. The only disagreement seems to be on how we view religious property. And I mention it again only to again make my point. Most people do see a difference between places of worship and other property. And our laws reflect this in a variety of ways such as zoning that prevents adult oriented businesses building too close to a church; as well as SCOTUS rulings that limit the ability of localities to prevent the building of churches. It is true that some people will see no difference between places of worship and any other private property. But most people still do. And so, I would argue, regardless of what the law may or may not, those of us in the gun community ought to give some serious thought to what should constitute proper etiquette relative to such places. For example, I think that what constitutes an acceptable response to being asked to leave a place of public accommodation like a Wal-Mart is different than would would be acceptable if asked to leave a church, mosque, synagogue, mortuary, or other place of worship. And this view should not very controversial as I think most everyone would agree that what constitutes polite or proper conduct generally will be different in a church than it would be in a grocery store, mall, race track, or other privately owned property generally open to the public. Charles |
|||||||||
|
rpyne Regular Member
|
While I do definitely agree that we must have respect for others and their property. I also believe that Mitch Vilos is right when he says that "Life and Liberty Interests have Priority over a Property Interests" (See Utah Gun Law, 3rd Edition, pp 337-8). He goes on to say, "The right associated with carrying a gun is not intended to preserve the gun, it's intended to preserve life and liberty. A close examination of our system of laws reveals that life and liberty interests easily outweigh property interests. This is because without life, one cannot have liberty. Without liberty, one cannot own property. Hence, when these rights are mentioned together, such as in Utah's Constitution, "life" comes before "Liberty" which in turn, precedes "property." ... The priority of life and liberty over property permeates the U.S. justice system." |
|||||||||
|
utbagpiper State Researcher
|
rpyne wrote: While I do definitely agree that we must have respect for others and their property. I also believe that Mitch Vilos is right when he says that "Life and Liberty Interests have Priority over a Property Interests" (See Utah Gun Law, 3rd Edition, pp 337-8). I agree completely and make that case often when it comes to property that constitutes places of public accommodation. However, not all property interest is created equal and so long as we recognize the right of home owners, churches, etc to exclude a person for any or no reason whatsoever, we MUST recognize their right to exclude you for having a gun in your possession. I don't necessarily think violation of such a private policy ought to be gun crime, but I note that in Utah the criminal penalty for peaceful violation of such private policies is less than the criminal penalty for trespassing. So while we might carp about the theory, we can hardly complain about the practicality of Utah's law in this regard. Charles |
|||||||||