New Mexico No Longer Recognizes Utah Concealed Carry License Santa Fe


Swinokur

New member
Link Removed

New Mexico No Longer Recognizes Utah Concealed Carry License

Santa Fe—Effective immediately New Mexico will no longer recognize concealed carry licenses issued by the state of Utah for the purposes of reciprocity in New Mexico, as the requirements for licensure in Utah do not meet the standards required in New Mexico statute. Rules governing the concealed carrying of weapons and issuance of licenses require that training and other provisions be as stringent or substantially similar to New Mexico requirements.

Questions concerning licenses obtained from Utah by New Mexico residents have made it necessary to reevaluate which states will be recognized as valid in New Mexico.

“We’ve had situations where certain concealed carry instructors in New Mexico solicit clients with the promise that if they train here and obtain a Utah license, which entails significantly less training than does a New Mexico license, it will qualify here,” said Department of Public Safety Secretary John Denko. “This is incorrect, and is nothing less than an effort to circumvent New Mexico concealed carry requirements which are designed to protect the public safety while honoring individual rights under the Second Amendment of the constitution.” The state will also review the status of eighteen other states currently recognized on an informal basis, with the intent of entering into written agreements with these states to ensure compliance
with New Mexico law. These states are: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming.

New Mexico currently has a written reciprocity agreement in place with Texas; the status of this
agreement will remain unchanged.
 

Last edited by a moderator:

utimmer43

New member
“We’ve had situations where certain concealed carry instructors in New Mexico solicit clients with the promise that if they train here and obtain a Utah license, which entails significantly less training than does a New Mexico license, it will qualify here,” said Department of Public Safety Secretary John Denko. “This is incorrect, and is nothing less than an effort to circumvent New Mexico concealed carry requirements which are designed to protect the public safety while honoring individual rights under the Second Amendment of the constitution.”
I'm not buying it. I highly doubt anyone was advertising that getting a UT permit was a way to get around the NM requirements. I would love to see any substantive evidence that any UT permit holders have acted in any illegal or responsible way at any rate greater than NM permit holders. It's all about the $$$ for all involved. NM doesn't like losing permit money to another state. So the easy target is UT. Likewise, why would someone get a license that costs $100 every 4 years, when they could get one that has even more reciprocal agreements and only cost $65 (+/-) the first time, and only $10 every 5 years thereafter?

What a crock. Well, I guess I avoid NM until I get a FL permit. I doubt that I'm missing much.
 

Swinokur

New member
I'm not buying it. I highly doubt anyone was advertising that getting a UT permit was a way to get around the NM requirements. I would love to see any substantive evidence that any UT permit holders have acted in any illegal or responsible way at any rate greater than NM permit holders. It's all about the $$$ for all involved. NM doesn't like losing permit money to another state. So the easy target is UT. Likewise, why would someone get a license that costs $100 every 4 years, when they could get one that has even more reciprocal agreements and only cost $65 (+/-) the first time, and only $10 every 5 years thereafter?

What a crock. Well, I guess I avoid NM until I get a FL permit. I doubt that I'm missing much.

The release states they are scrutinizing 18 other states as well. FL included. A FL permit may be invalid as well. time will tell.
 

Swinokur

New member
I'm not buying it. I highly doubt anyone was advertising that getting a UT permit was a way to get around the NM requirements. I would love to see any substantive evidence that any UT permit holders have acted in any illegal or responsible way at any rate greater than NM permit holders. It's all about the $$$ for all involved. NM doesn't like losing permit money to another state. So the easy target is UT. Likewise, why would someone get a license that costs $100 every 4 years, when they could get one that has even more reciprocal agreements and only cost $65 (+/-) the first time, and only $10 every 5 years thereafter?

What a crock. Well, I guess I avoid NM until I get a FL permit. I doubt that I'm missing much.

It may be this was easier than changing the actual law to require NM residents to have NM permits.But it couild be just the dollars as you mentioned.
 

NMHunter

NM Hunter
I'm not buying it. I highly doubt anyone was advertising that getting a UT permit was a way to get around the NM requirements. I would love to see any substantive evidence that any UT permit holders have acted in any illegal or responsible way at any rate greater than NM permit holders. It's all about the $$$ for all involved. NM doesn't like losing permit money to another state. So the easy target is UT. Likewise, why would someone get a license that costs $100 every 4 years, when they could get one that has even more reciprocal agreements and only cost $65 (+/-) the first time, and only $10 every 5 years thereafter?

What a crock. Well, I guess I avoid NM until I get a FL permit. I doubt that I'm missing much.

Sorry you feel that way. The Land of Enchantment really is enchanting. I own a gun shop here but am not a CHL instructor.

It is true though that there were/are 'instructors' who were advertising, mostly word of mouth or at gun shows, that their cheaper, one day class for Utah's license would take care of New Mexico. Which it did. These 'instructors' were undercutting the NM certified instructors who have to do a two day, 16 hour, class, that usually included the Utah certification if they were so certified. The Utah only instructors were just not providing the same training. Many of the NM certified instructors complained, rightly, that they were getting called greedy, cheats, and other stuff by potential customers and the Utah only instructors for charging more for "the same thing". I don't know about you but if I'm giving a two day class and following all the rules that is worth more than someone who is not even providing half the work and, as we see from the state police announcement, causing problems in the long term.

I don't want to say anything about the state police as that gets into local politics and is probably not of interest to most of you. Most of them, SP, are in favor of the rest of us responsible folk being armed. As one Chief of Police said when he was talking to one of my friends when he got his finger print card filled, "You're one of us now! Welcome!"
 
Last edited:
This is one of the reasons why I advise my students to get and maintain as many CC licenses/permits as they can afford. Laws change on a frequent basis and can often change quite quickly. Until our 2A rights are recognized nation wide, this is the best we can do to ensure our ability to legally travel armed.

Does this change have any effect on OC? Absent the places restricted under federal law (school zones, federal property, etc.) Is OC still possible without a NM recognized license/permit?



gf
 

Boomboy007

New member
There are 47 more states that need to "get right".

In my opinion, the only states that really respect the Bill of Rights is Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona. No permit needed, carry open or concealed.

How can three such disparate states get it, and everyone else complain about permit fees and class times?
:wacko:
 

utimmer43

New member
Sorry you feel that way. The Land of Enchantment really is enchanting.
Sorry if that came off as a knock on NM. My point about not missing much is that I've gone this long without visiting the state, it won't kill me to avoid it until I am able to CC there.
It is true though that there were/are 'instructors' who were advertising, mostly word of mouth or at gun shows, that their cheaper, one day class for Utah's license would take care of New Mexico. Which it did. These 'instructors' were undercutting the NM certified instructors who have to do a two day, 16 hour, class, that usually included the Utah certification if they were so certified. The Utah only instructors were just not providing the same training.
OK, this is different than the claim that Department of Public Safety Secretary John Denko is making, that it "is nothing less than an effort to circumvent New Mexico concealed carry requirements". He may as well have called it a loophole. The problem with the claim is that no one was circumventing anything. Everything was aboveboard and legal. So who in their right mind would pay for a NM permit if a UT permit is acceptable? Sure, the fact that the training part is less intensive is a kicker. But I highly doubt that the majority of applicants based their decisions solely on the training requirements.

So really what it comes down to is money and as you mention, the whining of the NM instructors who were losing business to the UT instructors. Well, that is how capitalism works. And here comes the government to foul it up. Guess what. Now the UT instructors get the shaft. At any rate, whatever criteria they use to decide whose permits to honor is what it is. (which BTW has me wondering why they honored UT in the first place?) I just don't like being fed this load of tripe that there was some sort of malfeasance at hand.
 

utimmer43

New member
Does this change have any effect on OC? Absent the places restricted under federal law (school zones, federal property, etc.) Is OC still possible without a NM recognized license/permit?



gf
Judging the DPS release, it looks like it only effects CC. Since no permit is required to OC in NM, this should have no effect on that.

Of course I could open a whole new can of worms, as it has never made any sense to me that CC requires a permit when OC does not, but I suppose that is another argument for another thread.
 

pyth0n

New member
AZ did the same thing with the Utah permit, for the same reasons. The only thing AZ did was to say if you're an AZ resident you will have an AZ permit. When the new law takes effect, it won't matter. My point is, NM should just state if you're a resident, you have to have a NM permit. And then change to the AK, VT, & AZ way.:victory:
 

NMHunter

NM Hunter
"So really what it comes down to is money and as you mention, the whining of the NM instructors who were losing business to the UT instructors. Well, that is how capitalism works. And here comes the government to foul it up. Guess what. Now the UT instructors get the shaft. At any rate, whatever criteria they use to decide whose permits to honor is what it is. (which BTW has me wondering why they honored UT in the first place?) I just don't like being fed this load of tripe that there was some sort of malfeasance at hand."

Come on over for a visit when we get this ridiculous situation straightened out. I do think it is petty politics. There are some in the administration who are anti-concealed carry and are pushing anything to restrict us. That's all I want to say about our local politics, right now.

There is a difference, especially, for those of us who travel to certain states. There are states, such as our neighbor Colorado, which do not recognize licenses that are not issued by one's state of residence. There are other reasons to have your own states license that have to do with federal law and proximity to schools.
I guess there is/was some whining but when one is selling their time for a particular product getting called a cheat just doesn't go down very well. And while some of the Utah only instructors were giving value for money some of them weren't explaining the restrictions on non-state of residence licenses for out of state travel. I don't want my customers to have problems when they go to visit Colorado, very common, so that's where I'm coming from on the issue.
 

Abacab

New member
There is a difference, especially, for those of us who travel to certain states. There are states, such as our neighbor Colorado, which do not recognize licenses that are not issued by one's state of residence. There are other reasons to have your own states license that have to do with federal law and proximity to schools.

Sadly some of us cannot get home state licenses very easily (MD, NY) or at all (NJ, WI, IL). I live in Maryland finally put in an application for a permit. The Maryland State Police must decide if your reason for a permit is a "good and substantial" reason to issue. If they do, the permit is heavily restricted and for use only when in that activity they felt was "good and substantial" (i.e. transporting a lot of cash). They intimated that I should get issued a permit but there are no guarantees.

Of course, even with a Maryland permit, it is not recognized anywhere outside of the "we take all" states. For that reason, I have permits from CT, FL, ME, NH, VA and UT. Now my UT is only good for MN. I like getting as many permits as possible, but it's damn annoying trying to keep track of all these changes.
 

NMHunter

NM Hunter
Agreed! As far as I'm concerned the only 'gun control' law we need is the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, the unthinking who don't trust themselves with sharp objects thrust their insecurities onto the rest of us.
 

BearTaylor

New member
I was born in Clovis into a family that settled in New Mexico before it became a state. Since I live in Kansas which does require live fire but not recognized by NM, I got the Utah permit so I could carry while visiting my old home state. If NM offered nonresident carry permits I would be the first in line to get one.

This sure throws me a curve since I was planning a two week family trip there later this summer. I guess we'll go to Utah, Colorado or Arizona, I really don't want to leave my family unprotected.
 

AussieRogue

New member
AZ did the same thing with the Utah permit, for the same reasons. The only thing AZ did was to say if you're an AZ resident you will have an AZ permit. When the new law takes effect, it won't matter. My point is, NM should just state if you're a resident, you have to have a NM permit. And then change to the AK, VT, & AZ way.:victory:

There is the problem In New Mexico you have to be a you have to be a US citizen to get a NM CCW so that is not good to me as I'm a permanent Resident IE green card holder so if they will not allow Utah and maybe Florida there are going to be more people OCing
 

NMHunter

NM Hunter
There is the problem In New Mexico you have to be a you have to be a US citizen to get a NM CCW so that is not good to me as I'm a permanent Resident IE green card holder so if they will not allow Utah and maybe Florida there are going to be more people OCing

I know at least one resident alien Canadian with a NM license. I don't know if he just slipped through or what.
 

Juanito

New member
These lies what the New Mexico politican are spreading is to try and weaken the second amendment. Its time to get the democrats out of office and elect true Americans into office. We all know the people who should be elected.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,493
Messages
624,280
Members
74,337
Latest member
TonyBryant
Top