search
top

Not Sure About This Idea

North Dakota is issuing a two tiered permitting system, one that requires training and one that does not.  Presumably the license with the training endorsement will win reciprocity agreements with more states, while the endorsement would not be required to carry in North Dakota itself.

Seems like an interesting idea, but I’m not sure whether it’s a good one.  How many potential reciprocal states would want to deal with the two tiered system?  Will enough people opt for the endorsed license to get reciprocity that the non-training license would be subject to elimination?  Pennsylvania has no training requirement, and has still managed to get reciprocity with about 23 states.  But Minnesota is right next door to North Dakota, and only does reciprocity with states that have similar licensing requirements.  I suspect Minnesota reciprocity might be what this is aimed at.

4 Responses to “Not Sure About This Idea”

  1. ExurbanKevin says:

    Arizona is looking to do something similar, with qualified applicants (i.e. competitive shooters, grads of NRA classes, etc) skipping the “Intro to Handguns” part and having a shorter course that focuses just on the law and shoot/no-shoot decisions.

    http://www.exurbanleague.com/2009/01/30/legal-and-wise.aspx

    I think it’s a good idea. I had been shooting competitively for 3 months and had taken the NRA Pistol course prior to my CCW class, so most of the shooting stuff was just review for me.

  2. Justin Buist says:

    I like the idea too. Personally I think Alaska has the right idea with their two-tiered system, but something requiring an actual permit for the in-state carry is a compromise I’d make if it got more people carrying that didn’t want to devote time to the whole classroom experience the other states want.

    In the end I think this is the only way we’re going to get national CCW. Graduated licenses. With driver’s licenses we have basic operator’s licenses, chauffeur’s licences, then CDLs, and within CDLs we have various endorsements. I believe we’ll end up with something similar in the CCW world with a simple in-state license, mult-state (what the current ones usually do) and then a national one only void in a couple of states.

    Just my two cents.

  3. Justin,

    Your point is exactly what I was going to say — this seems like a step towards AK Carry. In AK we can carry (open or concealed) without permits, but they offer a permit with background check, fingerprints, training class, etc for reciprocity purposes. It seems like a good idea given the way our system works now.

    Of course, we’ve got a border with Canada, and there’s no way we’ll ever get reciprocity there… Even my bear mace is questionable across the border, much less a handgun!

    Chris

  4. N.U.G.U.N. says:

    Actually, I think I’d accept a two-tiered system. Essentially, where there was a standard requirement for reciprocity.

    In other words, a “reciprocity license”. This would also allow states that don’t allow carry without permits to do so. And then you’d only have to seek the reciprocity ranked permit if you wanted/needed such.

    This way, Pennsylvania would not have to change their permitting system. But to receive a license with a reciprocity “stamp”, you might need a basic minimum of safety course, background check, etc.

    I’d accept that to be able to carry from PA to CT or down into MD.

top