Will Nevada honor Utah ccw in the future?


New member
I have a Utah ccw and understand that Nevada is no longer recognizing it. Is there any info floating around that Nevada will go back to honoring Utah? Or do I suck it up and Pay the price to obtain a Nevada permit? I believe thier decision is based only on financial concerns and nothing else. I have talked to a number of Nevada residents and they are furious about the fact that they have cut off Utah and Nevada repricosity.

My understanding is Nevada dropped Utah because Utah does not require live fire. I can see future reciprocity only if Utah starts requiring Live fire qualifying or Nevada drops the requirement
I suspect that the live fire issue is a smokescreen for financial considerations—why should we let Utah make the money from people who want to carry in our state?

Regardless, it seems that Nevada and Maine are the low-hanging fruit. Those states may not recognize Utah or Florida, but their out-of-state CCW permits are not particularly hard to get. Maine's is $60 for four years and (normally) does not require fingerprinting. Of course, if you don't plan to go to Maine, its CCW permit doesn't get you anything, since it's not a state you would travel through and it doesn't give you any states outside the Florida/Utah group.

Maine recognizes only in-state permits from Louisiana, Delaware, and South Dakota. Figure that one out.

Apparently the three "fuhgettaboutit" states are Hawaii, Maryland, and New Jersey (besides the obvious Illinois and Wisconsin).
My understanding is that Utah is actively trying to get Nevada back. It is also my understanding the person who made the call in Nevada to stop honoring Utah did so unilaterally and over the heads of some interested party. According to the person I talked to (his credentals were credible but take what I say with a grain of salt) he said "we are going to get Nevada back." Of course government work takes time.
I understand that there a bunch of folks that live in Nevada that are a little more than upset with the decision to not allow utah permits. They share a border and people on both sides are pissy about this decision. I think I will wait on getting the Nevada ccw and see how things work out.
I'd get and maintain as many permits as possible. With the way things are going, who what's next. One day we may wake up and find that more states have stopped honoring the permits we do have.

I suspect that the live fire issue is a smokescreen for financial considerations—why should we let Utah make the money from people who want to carry in our state?

I expect you are right. It seems the only states they recognize don't issue to out of state people (as near as I found).
Here is some interesting info that supports the opinion that Nevada dropped reciprocity for Utah and Florida for financial reasons. Every one of the state permits that Nevada now honors do not allow non-resident permits (accoring to the USACarry map). In other words, that means that for a non-resident to concealed carry in Nevada, you have to purchase a Nevada non-resident permit.

Just saw that the previous post made this point.
IMHO, there needs to be push to get rid of the live-fire requirement in Nevada. I say this for two reasons. First it would take away this particular excuse not to honor perfectly good carry permits. And second it would lower the overall cost to the applicant. Face it, live fire requires ammo, ammo costs money, and for alot of people money is tight right now do to economic factors. Also there are several perfectly acceptable alternatives to live fire training, including but not limitted to, blank firing exercises, Air-soft or other airgun training, Beam-hit or other laser simulated training, and of course dry fire exercises. An instructor should have the choice as to which training method or methods (s)he uses for a particular student.

Ideally in a "perfect" world, we wouldn't need a CC permit/license to exercise our 2A rights. However, since we do have states that have specific requirements, I feel that it is necessary for instructors to be confident that the person they're signing off on is proficient with a firearm. One of these ways is live fire training. As a Utah CFP Instructor, I encounter many students who have little or no experience with a firearm. Being that my name and reputation are at stake with each student I sign off on, I'd like to have some level of control as to how I determine if they're capable of "safely" handling a firearm. Utah has no live firing requirement, so this gives me the option as to weather or not I require students to do some type of "live fire" training. All students who have no "hands on" experience with "live fire" will demonstrate their ability to safely handle a firearm with live ammunition either formally or informally before I will sign my name to their application.

In time, I'm hoping that most states will go the route of AK or VT and not have a CC permit/license requirement.

"In time, I'm hoping that most states will go the route of AK or VT and not have a CC permit/license requirement."

I think that over the next few years we'll see some more states added to Alaska and Vermont. Wyoming will probably be next. Maybe New Jersey and Maryland after that (. . . yeah, right).

Glock Fan, I think you're right about obtaining as many permits as possible. A Pennsylvania permit doesn't get me anything I don't already have, but it doesn't cost much, so why not have it? You never know what political tiff will cause you, with your present permits, to lose a state that Pennsylvania covers. (But I wouldn't apply to a state where issue wasn't virtually certain. I don't want a "denial" on my record.)

Speaking of Nevada, I thought that since they dropped Utah, nonresidents have to make a person appearance in the state to get a CCW permit. (Same with Massachusetts, I think.) That would eliminate Nevada for me.

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Latest member