Interstate Concealed Carry permits?

[Doc Holliday 1950]

Don, I agree with you 100%. But getting the Feds to go along with this will be a horror story. They're going to demand that certain things happen or else they will not sign off on it.

This is a real mystery to me about this. I can travel to any state in America anytime I want. My license to drive is honored everywhere. So, if I've passed the National Background Check, then why isn't that good enough to go anywhere I please with my concealed weapon?
Anyone who can answer that is a genius.
Doc

 

[Cosmodragoon]

What we really need is to simply have the Constitution upheld. That is, all of us have the natural right and that right is supposed to be protected under both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. It is through a combination of apathy, gullibility, judicial activism, and more fundamentally, institutional capture and the subsequent long-term social consequences that we've had all of these violations imposed upon us. It is incumbent upon every one of us here to make serious efforts to counter this oppression. Whether those efforts are political, social, educational, or financial is up to you. Just be sure to do it.

That said, national reciprocity would be the next best thing. Anything else is questionable. If it requires new permits, new controls, new oversight, or new powers to any new or existing agency, it is a step in the wrong direction.

 

[NateKirk]

We have to consider how these laws are passed on the federal level. States like New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut will do their best to poison any law that gets proposed. It won't be as simple as a hunter safety course. More likely, it'll be expensive, inconvenient, and ultimately not very good.

New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey are only three states. Maybe it wouldn't be as simple as a hunters safety course, but it doesn't have to be complicated.

1.You apply for a national Firearms operators license (firearm equivalent of a drivers license) by passing a national background and mental health check, plus a firearms safety/operation class that has a TEST component. For this you could just use an NRA qualified safety/ instruction course so the government doesn't have to do alot of thinking.

2. Once you meet the requirements you are issued a license that allows you to buy/ sell firearms and ammunition, transport and use firearms in any state.

3. For people who want to CC, they can take an approved training course with a TESTING component. Once they pass they get a CPL endorsement stamp on their license (similar to a motorcycle endorsement). Once they have this they will be able to CC in all 50 states.

Doing something like this would effectively shift the power to regulate firearms greatly (if not entirely) to the Federal government. As bad as that sounds I think it would be a good compromise between our side and the anti gunners.
Pros
-Reciprocity between all states
-Simplified, standardized, process
-Less jackasses causing problems due to maintaining a higher standard (testing and more rigorous training requirements)
Cons
-Slight initial inconvenience
-Cost of more training

None of this need be expensive or complicated. Of course something like this would never get passed without the support of the NRA and whole of the gun community speaking up and vouching for it, and even then it probably wouldn't go through. Congress loves to fight.
I'll probably get a lot of hate for saying something this but oh well...

 

[Tom Servo]

New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey are only three states.

OK, let's add Hawaii, Maryland, California, and a few others. Tally up the number of representatives those states have. They can (and will) exert a great deal of control over the drafting process, and they won't be kind.

If they're forced to allow out-of-state folks to carry in their states, they're going to make the requirements onerous.

 

[AirForceShooter]

I still can't figure out why my CCW isn't good in every state and territory.

The "full faith and credit" clause should cover it already

AFS

 

[kraigwy]

National Carry doesn't have to be complicated. Just like driver's license , states have different standards and other states MUST recognize license from other states, EVEN IF THE STANDARDS ARE DIFFERENT.

It could be like the LEOSA. Where retired or off duty LEOs can carry most everywhere, not withstanding state laws.

Each state has its standards for LE Firearm Qualifications. The LEOSA requires that the LEO Retiree qualifies with a course of fire recognized by his states standards.

For example if state "A"'s qualification differs from state "B", State B still must recognize the right of retirees from state "A".

But I'm totally against any federal standards. For example if someone from Wyoming wrote the standards, you wouldn't even need a permit, whereas it someone from Ill wrote the standard they would be so strict no one could carry.

The LEOSA has been in effect for over 10 years and there hasn't been a problem that I'm aware of. With the exception of Chicago who got bit on the butt when they decided it didn't apply there, Cost Chicago a lot of money in civil suit for false arrest.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I think requiring people to take a more stringent course in order to have a CPL is a good thing, because judging by the people in the class I took, most CPL holders haven't a clue.

I don't think you'll find anyone on this forum who doesn't agree that training is good, and good training is "more good." However ...

... The Second Amendment does not impose any training requirement on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Which means that requiring people to take any sort of training before they are allowed to carry a firearm for self defense is unconstitutional.

 

[adamBomb]

... The Second Amendment does not impose any training requirement on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Which means that requiring people to take any sort of training before they are allowed to carry a firearm for self defense is unconstitutional.

Its up to the courts to decide what it means - so they could make us go through training. The founding fathers wrote the constitution like that on purpose...maybe to just mess with future generations but they left it open to the courts on purpose. This is why you have so many people on the left and right trying to say what it means, what militia means, what arms means (does it mean nuclear weapons), whats am arm? does it mean a musket? or new guns? all weapons? who knows etc.

 

[FITASC]

by passing a national background and mental health check, plus a firearms safety/operation class that has a TEST component.

And who gets to determine all of the qualifications? I did not have any mental health check for my license. If the person in charge is anti-gun, many folks might be denied who shouldn't have been. Several states do not recognize FL, for example, because the requirements aren't as strict as the other state.
States who basically do not allow concealed carry by making the process so draconian are not going to want armed folks from other states parading around with guns when their own citizens cannot.

 

[adamBomb]

And who gets to determine all of the qualifications? I did not have any mental health check for my license. If the person in charge is anti-gun, many folks might be denied who shouldn't have been. Several states do not recognize FL, for example, because the requirements aren't as strict as the other state.

This is definitely a slippery slope...people would be afraid to go to any mental health doctor. I think we all agree crazies shouldn't have guns but figuring out who they are is darn near impossible.

 

[DA/SA Fan]

Let's start by making psychiatric "records" available to the background check. I'm not talking about detailed records but there should be a consensus of what conditions should be prohibitive to gun ownership. Background check would just get a go or no go mandatory report from any psychiatric care facility or professional.

 

[Viper99]

Its not just gun licenses. They do the same for medical licenses as well. We have medical licenses for the north-east but if I want to move to Florida for example, now I have to be re-certified because your license is not recognized.

I agree that it is about the money but since that's what it is, why not just say give us a $500 every time you renew for all the states permit but if you just want the local permit, its still $100.

THis way both possibilities are covered, a lot more permits will be issued and every state will get money.

Not fair, but at least it would be a solution that most can live with.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Its up to the courts to decide what it means - so they could make us go through training. The founding fathers wrote the constitution like that on purpose...maybe to just mess with future generations but they left it open to the courts on purpose.

Whose side are you on?

The Second Amendment is unique among the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights in that it is the only one that explicitly says the right "shall not be infringed." It does not say "shall not be unreasonably infringed," it says "shall not be infringed." How much clearer can it be stated?

The Founders didn't leave the meaning of the Second Amendment intentionally vague so that it would be up to the courts to decide what it meant. They stated it in terms that a review of the other historical documents from the time show was thought to be very clear and not subject to misunderstanding or misinterpretation. Unfortunately, although many of them were lawyers, they failed to anticipate what lawyers would do to the language they thought was clear.

I am aware that in Heller Justice Scalia made reference to "presumptively" legal restrictions on the RKBA. But what does that mean? It does NOT mean (as the gun grabbers like to claim) that Mr. Scalia said all existing gun restrictions are legal. What he actually was saying was "Those other laws aren't under discussion, so we'll assume they are legal until we deal with them later."

I know our esteemed moderator, Frank Ettin, who is an attorney (and I would surmise a good one) has pointed out that other constitutional rights have been rules to be subject to reasonable restriction or regulation. That's all well and good, but none of the other rights in the Bill of Rights comes right out and says it "shall not be infringed." I don't dount that the Supreme Court will find a way to get around that, but anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity would have to acknowledge that "shall not be infringed" can only be interpreted to mean "shall not be infringed." And regulation = infringement.

The entire premise of a permit or license to exercise a constitutional right is flawed. Once you have to ask for permission to exercise a right, it's no longer a right. I'm not the first person to note that -- it's a thought that recurs on this forum regularly. Once you need a permit or a license, it becomes a privilege rather than a right.

 

[MarkCO]

Back to the topic tho, would you get multiple permits besides your home state? For me the ones I'm considering is the Utah permit and Oregon's permit.

It depends on where you are traveling to. The WA AG publishes the actual list for your state: http://atg.wa.gov/concealed-weapon-reciprocity

Avoid the catch all websites as I have found them to be wrong on many occasions. If you are merely traveling by car through states, check their laws on firearms transport.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It could be like the LEOSA. Where retired or off duty LEOs can carry most everywhere, not withstanding state laws.

Each state has its standards for LE Firearm Qualifications. The LEOSA requires that the LEO Retiree qualifies with a course of fire recognized by his states standards.

For example if state "A"'s qualification differs from state "B", State B still must recognize the right of retirees from state "A".

The LEOSA is far more Balkanized than that. Unless living in another state, retired officers are required to be annually qualified by the department from which they retired. And I know the local departments in my corner of the word don't all have the same requirements.

 

[NateKirk]

And who gets to determine all of the qualifications?

Probably people who know what they are talking about on the subject of if someone poses a danger to themselves or others. The American Psychiatric Association perhaps?

States who basically do not allow concealed carry by making the process so draconian are not going to want armed folks from other states parading around with guns when their own citizens cannot.

I was thinking more along the lines of if there is a national license there should be equal freedoms in each state since they all have to meet the same requirements, plus the states wouldn't have the power anymore, the federal level would. And since the standard would be higher there should be a logical push for less pistol free zones. More freedoms for the people willing to hold themselves to a higher standard, more, qualified people in important areas (schools, public buildings, etc.), and less idiots and ill people with guns.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I was thinking more along the lines of if there is a national license there should be equal freedoms in each state since they all have to meet the same requirements, plus the states wouldn't have the power anymore, the federal level would. And since the standard would be higher there should be a logical push for less pistol free zones. More freedoms for the people willing to hold themselves to a higher standard, more, qualified people in important areas (schools, public buildings, etc.), and less idiots and ill people with guns.

First, since the entire notion of a license or permit to exercise a constitutional right is antithetical to the Constitution, please stop and consider if it's really a good idea to advocate for enshrining an unconstitutional infringement in federal law.

Second, once the federal government establishes the requirements, they can change them any time they want. Considering that the Constitutional standard for training is NO training, again -- is it really a good idea to be advocating for the federal government to be setting universal standards that are higher than those set by many of the states? PA has no training requirement -- are there significantly more accidental shootings in PA than there are in the states with training requirements? I think you'll find that the statistics say "No." So why shouldn't the common ground be lower standards rather than higher?

I am 100 percent in favor of everyone being allowed to carry in every state. But ... I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution, and the especially the Second Amendment. IMHO what we should be working toward is first, universal reciprocity/recognition, based on the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution; and second, the eventual repeal of all state requirements for permits/licenses, for the simple reason that they are a violation of the Second Amendment.

Laws that establish regulations can always be made more restrictive. Look at Connecticut and NY. Both had AWB that mirrored the old, federal AWB, so both allowed the purchase of post-ban configuration AR-15s. Suddenly, after Sandy Hook, they rewrote their laws. All those previously legal post-ban ARs instantly because evil assault weapons. In Connecticut they had to be registered, sold out of state, or destroyed. Dunno what NY required, as I don't have any friends in NY who owned AR-15s. What states like CT and NY did to gun ownership, the federal government could just as easily do with requirements for carry permits.

I'm sorry, but I see pushing for a federal carry license as going in the wrong direction.

 

[Hunter Customs]

I am 100 percent in favor of everyone being allowed to carry in every state. But ... I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution, and the especially the Second Amendment. IMHO what we should be working toward is first, universal reciprocity/recognition, based on the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution; and second, the eventual repeal of all state requirements for permits/licenses, for the simple reason that they are a violation of the Second Amendment.

Very well said and that's exactly what we should be doing.

 

[Cosmodragoon]

... what we should be working toward is first, universal reciprocity/recognition, based on the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution; and second, the eventual repeal of all state requirements for permits/licenses, for the simple reason that they are a violation of the Second Amendment.

+2

 

[NateKirk]

I'm a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution, and the especially the Second Amendment. IMHO what we should be working toward is first, universal reciprocity/recognition, based on the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution; and second, the eventual repeal of all state requirements for permits/licenses, for the simple reason that they are a violation of the Second Amendment.

I think think the shooting community should make some compromises before the media and politicians sway public opinion to the point of making a constitutional amendment feasible. Most people already think we need more gun control. From there, people can be made to think that "Hey, the second amendment is holding us back; lets change it" and then we've all lost. Remember that we are the minority and unlike other minority rights campaigns, the other side isn't going to be swayed into empathy for our cause because to them it's just a hobby. I agree that the second amendment should not be violated, but having such a black and white view of it, in my opinion, is dangerous to our cause.