PDA

View Full Version : Wyoming Drops Reciprocity with 15 States


aileron
02-20-2009, 7:01 AM
Bad news but, UTAH is still on the list. :)

http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/4268/53/


Wyoming Drops Reciprocity with 15 States
Written by Daniel White
Thursday, 19 February 2009

The State of Wyoming has announced they are dropping reciprocity with fifteen states because their "concealed firearm permit statutes are not sufficiently similar to Wyoming’s." Ohio was one of only eight states kept.

As listed on their website:

The Wyoming Attorney General holds that if a misdemeanor drug conviction disqualifies a Wyoming resident, it also needs to disqualify an out-of-state permit holder. Due to the difference in how each state handles controlled substance convictions, Wyoming is also limited in our ability to maintain reciprocity with states we may have previously. Wyoming recognizes concealed firearm permits from the following states.

Accordingly, as of March 1, 2009, Wyoming can only honor concealed firearm permits issued by the following states:

Connecticut
Georgia
Maryland
Massachusetts
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Utah

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action is urging gun rights activists to contact Wyoming Attorney General Salzburg to ask him to reconsider this decision at (307) 777-7841 or fax at (307) 777-6869.

Tyler
02-20-2009, 8:39 AM
LAME! Now my South Dakota permit is useless in Nebraska and Wyoming... I can't leave the state.

DedEye
02-20-2009, 9:15 AM
That sucks; did they say how they were too dissimilar?

mblat
02-20-2009, 9:27 AM
LAME! Now my South Dakota permit is useless in Nebraska and Wyoming... I can't leave the state.

Time to get Utah permit

emc002
02-20-2009, 9:36 AM
Utah just got another notch better over Florida then.

DDT
02-20-2009, 9:43 AM
That sucks; did they say how they were too dissimilar?

It is in the original post. Drug misdemeanor treatment.

DedEye
02-20-2009, 10:04 AM
It is in the original post. Drug misdemeanor treatment.

Thanks, completely missed it in the middle of that paragraph :o.

dfletcher
02-20-2009, 10:37 AM
I'm an NRA Life member. I have the Utah non resident CCW and I want as many qualified people to get whatever CCW may be available to them, resident or nonresident. I have to say though, I'm a bit unenthusiastic about NRA involvement in this issue when their approach seems to be persuading an issuing state to abide by the standards of another state. Shouldn't NRA push the states that were originally certified to maintain Wyoming standards?

Suvorov
02-20-2009, 10:45 AM
The nice thing is however that in Wyoming, unless you have the gun hidden on your body, it is not concealed. Thus loaded open carry as well as keeping a loaded firearm hidden in your vehicle are still OK. Wyoming's firearms laws are liberal enough that I never saw the need to get a permit. So even without reciprocity, an out of stater in Wyoming still has far more rights than we do in the PRK :(

mblat
02-20-2009, 11:00 AM
I hate to say this..... I truly do..... but that is the reason why we need National Standards for CCW.... along with National Reciprocity like driver licenses....

Shotgun Man
02-20-2009, 11:15 AM
I hate to say this..... I truly do..... but that is the reason why we need National Standards for CCW.... along with National Reciprocity like driver licenses....

True, but the national policy should be no licensure because carrying a concealed firearm is an innate right, similar to the right to breathe air.

CCWFacts
02-20-2009, 11:25 AM
Here's my idea on this:

The ideal is for states to offer two classes of CCWs. One that meets whatever their criteria are. The other would be called a "national class" CCW. The holder of that would have to meet a more stringent set of standards, one that would meet the requirements of basically any state that honors any out-of-state permits.

On application, someone in Colorado (for example) would decide if he wants to go with the Colorado requirements, or if he wants to voluntarily go for a stricter set of requirements (more BG requirements, more training, whatever).

Then states like Wyoming could say, "we'll honor Colorado permits that are of the national class".

That would let residents of any state that has CCW make a decision about what they want to do: meet their state's minimum requirements, or go beyond them to get a CCW that's valid in more places.

I think Alaska already does something like this. No CCW is required in Alaska. But they offer one so that their citizens can use it in other states. It's a great way to give people a choice without adding any restrictions to the state requirements.

For example, for me, I don't have any misdemeanors so if I were in one of the states that allowed misdemeanors that WY didn't, I would like to get a CCW from that state that had a "no misdemeanors" requirement. I can meet it, and then Wyoming should honor it. Similarly, I would be happy to meet extra training requirements and so on; I want to take more training anyway.

Bruce
02-20-2009, 11:49 AM
I hate to say this..... I truly do..... but that is the reason why we need National Standards for CCW.... along with National Reciprocity like driver licenses....

What we need is NO restrictions on CCW in any state at all. :thumbsup:

mblat
02-20-2009, 11:51 AM
Here's my idea on this:

The ideal is for states to offer two classes of CCWs. One that meets whatever their criteria are. The other would be called a "national class" CCW. The holder of that would have to meet a more stringent set of standards, one that would meet the requirements of basically any state that honors any out-of-state permits.

On application, someone in Colorado (for example) would decide if he wants to go with the Colorado requirements, or if he wants to voluntarily go for a stricter set of requirements (more BG requirements, more training, whatever).

Then states like Wyoming could say, "we'll honor Colorado permits that are of the national class".

That would let residents of any state that has CCW make a decision about what they want to do: meet their state's minimum requirements, or go beyond them to get a CCW that's valid in more places.

I think Alaska already does something like this. No CCW is required in Alaska. But they offer one so that their citizens can use it in other states. It's a great way to give people a choice without adding any restrictions to the state requirements.

For example, for me, I don't have any misdemeanors so if I were in one of the states that allowed misdemeanors that WY didn't, I would like to get a CCW from that state that had a "no misdemeanors" requirement. I can meet it, and then Wyoming should honor it. Similarly, I would be happy to meet extra training requirements and so on; I want to take more training anyway.

I though t about it..... problem, of cause, is that what is whatever their criteria are. How would South Dakota would really know what is satisfactory for Montana?
So National Standard seems required.

What we need is NO restrictions on CCW in any state at all.
Of cause..... but we are talking reality here....

AaronHorrocks
02-20-2009, 12:14 PM
I hate to say this..... I truly do..... but that is the reason why we need National Standards for CCW.... along with National Reciprocity like driver licenses....

There's no National Standards for Drivers Licenses, as there should not be, and therefore there should be no National Standards for CCW. I reject your Federalism. All we need is a lawsuit or a bill to force states to honor each other's CCWs.

mblat
02-20-2009, 12:25 PM
There's no National Standards for Drivers Licenses, as there should not be, and therefore there should be no National Standards for CCW. I reject your Federalism. All we need is a lawsuit or a bill to force states to honor each other's CCWs.

Hear you, but... and how long did it take to have uniform driving rules throughout the US? All the way to 1980 there still were some states where right turn on red light was illegal. There are some states that allow you to turn LEFT on red.

The difference is that if violating traffic law worth that can happened to you is ticket and fine.... with violating CCW law you may end up in prison.

AaronHorrocks
02-20-2009, 12:32 PM
Misuse of either a car or firearm can be deadly, and land you in prison.

Travel interstate and intrastate is a right, much like the right to keep and bear arms. Restrictions on either for law abiding citizens are a clear and direction violation of rights.

GuyW
02-20-2009, 12:38 PM
The nice thing is however that in Wyoming, unless you have the gun hidden on your body, it is not concealed. Thus loaded open carry as well as keeping a loaded firearm hidden in your vehicle are still OK. Wyoming's firearms laws are liberal enough that I never saw the need to get a permit. So even without reciprocity, an out of stater in Wyoming still has far more rights than we do in the PRK :(

One of the more amazing things for me about getting a CCW from Utah, is that I eventually learned the laws in states like AZ and Texas, where having a CCW is _almost_ superfilous because the gun laws are so good otherwise...

.

dfletcher
02-20-2009, 1:13 PM
Why is this of no use to us? From the US Constitution.

Article IV Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Good enough for marriage, good enough for a drivers license - good enough to have returned "fugitive slaves" to their owners. Not good enough for enforcing a right?

AaronHorrocks
02-20-2009, 1:23 PM
Why is this of no use to us? From the US Constitution.

Article IV Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Good enough for marriage, good enough for a drivers license - good enough to have returned "fugitive slaves" to their owners. Not good enough for enforcing a right?

That's my point. Thanks for spelling it out!

mblat
02-20-2009, 1:32 PM
Why is this of no use to us? From the US Constitution.

Article IV Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Good enough for marriage, good enough for a drivers license - good enough to have returned "fugitive slaves" to their owners. Not good enough for enforcing a right?

<shrugs> Because the Constitution doesn't mean much? And never really did?
Common..... what kind of question is it "why it isn't of no use?" Because it won't save you from going to jail? That obvious answer doesn't work for you?

Cypren
02-20-2009, 1:34 PM
Good enough for marriage, good enough for a drivers license - good enough to have returned "fugitive slaves" to their owners. Not good enough for enforcing a right?

It's of no use to us because RKBA wasn't an individual right until last year (District of Columbia v. Heller) and is too new of a precedent to have had its limits tested yet. Moreover, Heller specifically calls out concealed carry as not being an unlimited right, and something which the government has a compelling interest in regulating.

It will take a number of years for this to be argued, tested, poked, prodded and for new consensus to form, and the enemies of the armed citizenry will be working overtime to ensure that it is as narrow and restrictive as possible, giving them as much leeway to strip our rights as they can manage. National CCW may not even happen within our lifetimes, if ever. The legal system moves very slowly in Internet time.

dfletcher
02-20-2009, 3:56 PM
<shrugs> Because the Constitution doesn't mean much? And never really did?
Common..... what kind of question is it "why it isn't of no use?" Because it won't save you from going to jail? That obvious answer doesn't work for you?

Shoot - I thought it was a question that got a couple pretty good answers, but maybe I'm wrong. It's happened before. :(

RobG
02-20-2009, 5:25 PM
So even without reciprocity, an out of stater in Wyoming still has far more rights than we do in the PRK :(

:rofl2: Like thats tough to do:(

AaronHorrocks
02-23-2009, 12:48 PM
It's of no use to us because RKBA wasn't an individual right until last year (District of Columbia v. Heller) and is too new of a precedent to have had its limits tested yet.

It's always been an individual right. The problem is that some socialist elites needed the fact that it is an individual right crammed down thier throats by the supreme court.

Cypren
02-23-2009, 2:17 PM
It's always been an individual right. The problem is that some socialist elites needed the fact that it is an individual right crammed down thier throats by the supreme court.

Arguing philosophy doesn't help much when you're facing arrest, and arguing principles to politicians is a complete waste of time in general, but especially when your opposition is arguing with cold hard cash in the form of campaign donations, lavish fundraisers and shady gratuities.

As a practical matter, the only thing that makes a difference when asserting your rights are consequences -- for the politicians who pass the laws and the police officers who enforce them. And that's why the RKBA wasn't individual until last year: there were no consequences for the government infringing it. Now there are, but the limits of the scope of the right and the consequences for violating it have yet to be tested.

AaronHorrocks
02-23-2009, 2:55 PM
It's only been a problem for the last 75 years or so that violating the constitution doesn't actually have any consequences. Before the 1930s no one would dare to violate the constitution.

The thing is the constitution isn't like your states and federal laws with punishments for breaking them. It's more like the 10 commandments where god is telling you THOU SHALL NOT ______... But leave it to our modern congress and they'll break everyone of those rules too.

blackbox
02-24-2009, 12:04 AM
There's no National Standards for Drivers Licenses, as there should not be, and therefore there should be no National Standards for CCW. I reject your Federalism. All we need is a lawsuit or a bill to force states to honor each other's CCWs.

Did you miss the whole fight over RealID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act) ?