Several states require that training for a pistol carry permit not only meet standards set by the state, but that the training itself physically occur within the state's borders. For example, Nevada:
NRS 202.3657 ...(d) Demonstrates competence with a firearm by presenting a certificate or other documentation to the sheriff which shows that he: (1) Successfully completed a course in firearm safety approved by a sheriff in this state; or (2) Successfully completed a course in firearm safety offered by a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, community college, university or national organization that certifies instructors in firearm safety. Such a course must include instruction in the use of each firearm to which the application pertains and in the laws of this state relating to the proper use of a firearm. A sheriff may not approve a course in firearm safety pursuant to subparagraph (1) unless he determines that the course meets any standards that are established by the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association, or if the Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association ceases to exist, its legal successor. www.packing.org adds this note: As of May 8, 2002, the Nevada Sheriffs' and Chiefs' Association requires that CFP training must take place in the State of Nevada by an Instructor holding a business license for the location in which he plans to teach. And: On March 29, 2002 the Nevada Sheriffs' and Chiefs' Association passed a motion that requires that all training for a Nevada Concealed Firearms Permit must take place in Nevada. I wonder whether such in-state requirements are constitutional, under Granholm V. Heald (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1116.ZO.html): "Time and again this Court has held that, in all but the narrowest circumstances, state laws violate the Commerce Clause if they mandate ³differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests that benefits the former and burdens the latter.² Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Ore., 511 U.S. 93, 99 (1994). See also New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269, 274 (1988). This rule is essential to the foundations of the Union. The mere fact of nonresidence should not foreclose a producer in one State from access to markets in other States. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U.S. 525, 539 (1949). States may not enact laws that burden out-of-state producers or shippers simply to give a competitive advantage to in-state businesses." and "State laws that discriminate against interstate commerce face ³a virtually per se rule of invalidity.² Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 624 (1978)." Is training for a pistol permit "commerce"? If so, is there any decent argument under which a statute (or formal rule, or determination by an organization authorized by statute to establish standards or requirements) that disallows recognition of training by out-of-state instructors could withstand scrutiny, were it to be challenged in court? -- Bob Woolley St. Paul, MN [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful." --Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
