I have not heard about this one. Nevada does have some funky gun laws. The City of North Las Vegas bans the carrying of fire arms as does Boulder City Nevada. It makes no difference if you hava a permit or not. They have canceled the right of Utah citizens to carry in thier state. You must be very careful with firearms in your car or truck while crossing this state. Nevada is gettin more like their sister state of California.
RR
I take it Nevada does not have a pre-emption law then?
I wouldn't say they have canceled the right of Utah citizens to carry. Its a states right to decide which permits they honor. Utah has been having some problems becuase they have very minimal requirements. While I would prefer my permit be recognized there,its a states right to decide whether or not to accept the permits. The only things I can see changing it are a national reciprocity law or a ruling by the supreme court that we all have the RIGHT to carry concealed,which I dont see happening any time soon. Actually In my lay persons understanding of the constitution,I'm not sure that the federal government has the power to enact national reciprocity of carry permits exclusive of the 2nd amendment. Its a stretch to consider carrying a weapon to fall under the definition of "commerce between the several states". The second amendment now allows it as the courts have ruled that we have a right to be armed to protect ourselves but that laws that regulate what how and when you can carry are permissible. Presumably that allows federal and state laws on for instance assault weapons and machine guns to stay in force,however the flip side of may well be that it gives the federal government the right to say that you cant walk down the street with a full automatic AK47 (they are actually silent on this but make it very difficult to actually buy one) but the argument could be made that it also gives the federal government the right to say you CAN walk down the street with one.
I'm actually split on the issue of national reciprocity. While I think all states should issue permits to any sane and law abiding citizen that wants one,I am a little uncomfortable with the idea that for instance Arizona or Alaska that have no requirements to even have a permit to carry could decide to issue blank permits for 5 dollars with an official number,where you just fill in your name, and every other state would be REQUIRED to accept it in their state as if it were their own. Some states have decided to have a training requirement. I felt that the 4 hours I had to sit through were actually time well spent. We learned the basics of what were expected of us. Thats what I feel the requirements for a carry permit should be about. I feel the important thing a class needs to teach is when and where it is acceptable to use your weapon. The risk that a permit holder will be incompetent with his weapon and injure people around him is minimal. I cant recall ever reading a story about someone who was justifiably using a weapon in self defense accidentally shooting a by stander. I'm sure it happens,but if it happened A LOT we would hear about it every single time. "Man shoots child while attempting to fend off robber" is a "great" headline. Much better in fact than "man fends off robber with handgun",at least as far as the news papers are concerned. Most of the stories are something like "Man shoots at fleeing robber as he jumps into car and kills girlfriend/getaway drivers infant son in back seat"
In fact,I think the academic understanding of how to use your gun,in other words, muzzle control and other safe gun handling techniques,knowing whats behind your target and knowing when its legally acceptable to draw your weapon or discharge it solve most of the problems and are far more effective than requiring that someone can get a 6" group at 10 yards.
My feeling is any sort of national reciprocity of carry permits should have stipulations attached. For instance,it seems to me that if a state were to be required to recognize another states permit,it should only be for permits issued by a state to its own residence. In other words,what right does Florida have to tell Colorado that a Utah resident can carry a gun. Second it should be on a temporary basis. If I'm driving to Ohio,from Utah,maybe it makes sense for me to carry my gun with me without having to stop at every border and figure out whether my permit is valid on the other side. On the other hand,if I move to Colorado and am no longer a Utah resident,what right does Utah have to tell me that I can carry a gun just becuase I USED to be a resident. I should have to get a Colorado permit. In fact,in that case,the 2nd amendment does NOT apply. Utah has no jurisdiction over that matter. Colorado has a responsibility to adhere to the 2nd amendment and the federal government has the jurisdiction to force them to do it,but Utah has no standing in the matter if I'm no longer a resident.
Ideally the supreme court would rule that just as you have a right to have a handgun in your home for self defense,that right extends to your person no matter where you are. All states would be required to go shall issue or permit-less carry and citizens would be allowed to carry guns while traveling according to the laws of the states they are traveling in so long as it was legal for them to carry in their home states. There would be a few lawsuits hammering out the limits. (under what circumstances can you deny permits for instance,if your state requires you to list a justification,and you write on the application in green crayon "I need a concealed gun because the employees at the "Baby Gap" in the mall are really disciples of Satan who are beaming messages into my head and I need this "license to kill" so I can shoot them" you probably should not be given a permit. I'm not saying they SHOULD ask for a justification,just that if they DO and you are clearly crazy,you should not get a permit. Yes,your probably going to carry it anyway,but still.)
