From the NRA:

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Effective, July 1, Nevada will no longer recognize Right-to-Carry permits from Utah or Florida. They have, however, added Ohio and West Virginia as recognized states.

Each May, the Nevada Department of Public Safety conducts an audit of states and their Right-to-Carry laws for the purpose of determining which states it will recognize.

The Nevada DPS dropped Utah because it does not have a live fire requirement, which is a part of Nevada's training requirements. When the Nevada DPS first began its state by state audit of Right-to-Carry laws in 2007, DPS admitted to NRA representatives that they overlooked the live fire training requirement. After further review, they determined that Utah wasn't similar enough to keep it on the list of recognized states.

Florida will no longer be recognized because its permits are now valid for seven years instead of five.

The Nevada DPS and the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs will be hosting their annual Right-to-Carry forum in Carson City in August with a teleconference feed to Las Vegas. We encourage all members to attend this informational meeting. Details will be forthcoming.

Please continue checking your email and www.NRAILA.org for updates.

Well, crap. I don't see why Minnesota doesn't appear on Nevada's "substantially similar" list. Because we don't do fingerprints and photographs? Because we don't sign off in specific guns? Sheesh.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRs/NRS-202. ... 202Sec3653

Also, the state needs the approval of the Chiefs and Sheriffs Association to accept another state's permit. That's fucked, right there.



That's REALLY fucked. That has nothing to do with this:


This is political. I don't know why, but it has nothing to do with objective evaluation.

Although I have no reason to dispute the NRA e-mail, I did call Nevada and all they will say is that any such decision will be made pursuant to statute on July 1, 2009. So, I assume that it is more or less under wraps until then. I suppose there is always some possibility of pressure on the authorities and they will change their minds.

Sufficient pressure? I dunno. Pressure? Sure. If even a few trips -- and preferably a convention or two -- get cancelled in the interim, out of concern for the upcoming decision, and that information is conveyed to the LVCofC, pressure will be brought to bear.

Enough? Probably not. Will it happen at all? I doubt it; there's lots of folks who will complain and then do nothing. Me, I'm not complaining -- no skin off mine, after all.

Las Vegas and No carry. Now I have two reasons to avoid NV.

From the Nevada DPS site:



http://www.nvrepository.state.nv.us/ccw_changes.shtml

I believe that NONE of these states issue to non-residents.
One has to wonder why Minnesota isn't on the list.

Maybe you answered the question yourself since MN does issue to non-residents.

Yes, but the Nevada authorities have never SAID that the residence of the permit holder was significant. If so, they NEVER would have initially recognized Florida and Utah or gone to the trouble of making up other reasons. Nope, it some sort of backroom Sheriff's Assn. politics at work here.

Note: The NRA agreed to this provision in the Nevada law:

I think this is a case study in the importance of dealing with reciprocity at the federal level. Not only are the states handling it badly, they are doing so with little warning and in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. The Minnesota situation shows that even a well-written law can be screwed up by law enforcement interests opposed to carry.