nationwide concealed carry permit

[DMMikey]

I know many on this board do not believe that the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed in any way.
I almost agree with that, when it comes to keeping arms in your own home, in order to protect your safety there.
I think carrying a weapon on your person, concealed, also means that you must recognize a serious responsibility in terms of behavior, ability, and knowledge of the law and rights of others.
If we were able to get a nationwide concealed carry law passed, similar to the way driver's licenses are recognized, what regulations would you accept to get it?
A test of proficiency? Legal knowledge? Magazine size limitations? Areas where carry wouldn't be permitted?
Just curious if it would be possible to develop a consensus on this, and therefore make even proposing such a law possible.
It would be nice to have laws that are more uniform, and also know that if someone sees my out of state plate, he can't assume I'm unarmed.

 

[uncballzer]

Well, with regards to restrictions, I would like to be able to carry into the bank, at a parade, and inside the movie theater. Can't do that right now in NC; it's rare, but I see more (i'm stereotyping here) people that I would distrust (judging a book by its cover) at the theater; there's a lot of people to try to shoot down at parades, and banks get robbed often enough to warrant it. Also, carry on college/school campus' if you have your CCP.

 

[hoytinak]

I would like to be able to carry into the bank, at a parade, and inside the movie theater. Can't do that right now in NC

Yeah I found that one out the hard way, I got caught carrying in a theater in Fayetteville while I was stationed there. The cop was cool about it though, after showing him my CHL, he just told me to go put the firearm in my truck.

It would be nice to have laws that are more uniform

Yes, it would be nice, but it would never happen. If it did, all the states would have to go the the laws of the strictest states ( ie. CA,MA) and if that was the case I'm perfectly happy with my regular Texas CHL.

 

[Gatorhugger]

If they keep making restrictions, can't carry in bars, sporting events, in your car at work, at work, at church, at school, on vacation.....Pretty soon the permits are toothless. That's the problem, it looks like progressive carry laws are being passed, but with too much baggage.
I guess I can carry it in my backyard with my permit.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

A uniform national CCW might be nice but I have a feeling that in order to make it happen that most states and most CCW holders would loose rights.

Case in point:

Kentucky (where I'm from) is very liberal with it's gun rights. Any one traveling through Kentucky (CCW or not) may keep a loaded gun in their glove box.

It is illegal for any employeer in Kentucky to bar you from keeping a gun in your glove box even at work.

These are just two of the gun rights Kentucky offers. I don't see a lot of other states signing up to take on those rights on a national level. I do see liberal gun law states loosing ground to meet a national carry license however.

A national CCW would be great, but I don't want to loose my rights in the process.

 

[blume357]

What a lot of y'all don't realize is it is pretty dern well unconstitional

The same reason the Federal Government really doesn't have any control over the gun laws inside a state... only the laws between states.... the federal government can't pass a law saying one state has to recognize another states laws... at least that's the way I see it.

I hope it works this way, I don't see there ever being a national carry permit... what would be more likely in the future is a president and congress that trys to outlaw all carry in all states... and because of my reasons stated above... I don't think the federal government can do that with out changing the original constitution... it has to do with states rights.... but then again we fought a war a while ago that pretty much had the final word on states rights... when you come down to it.

 

[Musketeer]

I think carrying a weapon on your person, concealed, also means that you must recognize a serious responsibility in terms of behavior, ability, and knowledge of the law and rights of others.

It is good you feel that, I do as well. The problem is that the criminal does not and is exempt from any legal restrictions on carry because... he is a criminal. 99% of the restrictions on carry only apply in a real world sense because the citizenry obey them. They obey them because of a respect for the law while the criminal could care less. Any crime committed with the firearm carried by the criminal has far more repercussions if caught than the simple act of carrying the weapon illegally.

In a real world there is no way the sheep would go for national permit free carry so I would accept the following.

1. Shall issue to all US Citizens after a background check. Those prohibited would be felons convicted of a violent crime (assault, rape, etc) and any felonious robbery/burglary/theft or menacing committed while carrying a firearm or knife. Also prohibited are those who have been committed for mental illness as a danger to themselves and others with a path included towards a return of their rights based on response to treatment and continued treatment (details need to be ironed out on that).

2. A person's body is considered private property with a reasonable expectation of privacy and exempt from search and regulation with regards to a lawfully carried weapon. Exceptions may be made for facilities such as courts, secure gov't facilities, airports and similar locations (nuke plants, etc) so long as effective measures are takes at such facilities to ensure weapons are not allowed illicit entry and trained, armed officers are present with the prime responsibility of protecting the lives of those who are in their care.

3. Training must be taken focusing on both the lawful use of deadly force in the current jurisdiction as well as national guidelines (not everywhere is castle doctrine). Also covered will be the basic rules of safe gun handling. Max time is 6 hours.

4. In no case will a person who is legally blind be allowed a permit to carry a handgun.

5. Permits are for life although training must be retaken if moving to a new state to familiarize one with the local laws for deadly force.

6. Training is provided FREE OF CHARGE and must be available at least once per month in the county of residence. A minimum of one full session (conducted in full or two half sessions) must be conducted on weekends and a also in evenings a minimum of once per year. (Any charge is a "poll tax" preventing those without means to exercise a right. Any significant inconvenience on training acts to deny the right as well.)

 

[divemedic]

Under the full faith and credit clause (Article IV, Section 1), the Federal government requires one state to honor the licenses of the other states. This is within the constitutional power of the FedGov under the COTUS, and is needed to prevent a state from enacting punitive measures against the citizens of other states.

Driver's licenses are a good example of this.

The same thing should apply here: the FedGov require a state to honor all other CWLs from other states, under the same carry restrictions that would be applied to any CWL holder from the state where the weapon is being carried. That is the same terms under which your driver's license is honored.

I am against a national CCW because once we get it, an anti president can take it away with the stroke of a pen. Full faith and credit is the way to go.

 

[HKuser]

Driver's licenses are a good example of this.

No they're not, driver's licenses are recognized under an interstate compact to which almost all the states are signatories. The few that aren't grant reciprocal recognition under their own law.

 

[DMacLeod]

Yes, it would be nice, but it would never happen. If it did, all the states would have to go the the laws of the strictest states ( ie. CA,MA) and if that was the case I'm perfectly happy with my regular Texas CHL.
__________________

If it were the sane as MA it would be OK with me. MA really isn't that bad.

The only places we can't carry are the same places most states have; No federal buildings, state buildings or schools.

Theaters, bars,spectator events, etc are ok.

 

[cxg231]

The same reason the Federal Government really doesn't have any control over the gun laws inside a state... only the laws between states.... the federal government can't pass a law saying one state has to recognize another states laws... at least that's the way I see it.

I hope it works this way, I don't see there ever being a national carry permit... what would be more likely in the future is a president and congress that trys to outlaw all carry in all states... and because of my reasons stated above... I don't think the federal government can do that with out changing the original constitution... it has to do with states rights.... but then again we fought a war a while ago that pretty much had the final word on states rights... when you come down to it.

I believe that if Congress passed a law and the President signed it, there would be a national carry law. States are allowed to pass laws that are stricter than the federal requirements, but not less strict. Like the speed limit, congress says you can go "up to" a certain speed on the highway, but states can pretty much choose the speed to set. 70 in some places, 55 in others, etc...

The problem is that as you would travel from state to state there could still be different regulations on where you can carry and can't carry.

Federal laws trump state laws, so if congress passed it, we would get one. But in what form?

 

[Yellowfin]

CCW laws are constantly rolling towards more rights, so I'd say you definitely have a lot to be looking forward to in that regard. I'd say just getting more states to recognize more permits is the best way to go about it. If you want national carry here's the one thing you can do that we all need to:

HAMMER CALIFORNIA'S ATTORNEY GENERAL TO START RECIPROCITY!!!!

 

[Hugh Damright]

Federal laws trump state laws

And the Constitution trumps federal laws. If the feds pass a law which they have no authority to pass, such as a nationwide carry permit, then I think the way it should work is that the law would end up before the SCOTUS and would be ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that it exceeded federal powers, just as the national speed limit was struck down.

 

[cxg231]

And the Constitution trumps federal laws. If the feds pass a law which they have no authority to pass, such as a nationwide carry permit, then I think the way it should work is that the law would end up before the SCOTUS and would be ruled unconstitutional on the grounds that it exceeded federal powers, just as the national speed limit was struck down.

Kindly point out where the United States Constitution says that states don't have to recognize federal law. Or where the feds can't pass a national carry law if they wanted to.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

And for the record, the national speed limit wasn't "struck down" - it just didn't make sense anymore so Congress repealed the law.

PS - My intent here is to keep this civil, rereading my post it may seem less than such. But I don't know another way to phrase my point. I welcome cross-discussion, as I am not a lawyer - I just call it like I see it.

 

[Musketeer]

We need to look at it as a 2A issue with the emphasis on BEAR ARMS. The law would say that such restrictions as I emphasized above are the MAXIMUM which could be placed without violating the 2A, similar to what are the maximum restrictions which could be placed for voting. States are then free to institute lesser restrictions should they so choose and allow the people of each state to decide. Permits from any state must be honored by all others but residents of a state must have a permit issued by their state.

 

[STAGE 2]

Kindly point out where the United States Constitution says that states don't have to recognize federal law. Or where the feds can't pass a national carry law if they wanted to.

If you are asking that question then you fundamentally misunderstand the constitution. The constitution is a limited grant of power. Thus its not the case that you can do something as long as its not prohibited, its that you can't do something unless it is expressly listed.

So the question then is, under what authority could congress pass such a law.

 

[Hugh Damright]

Kindly point out where the United States Constitution says that states don't have to recognize federal law. Or where the feds can't pass a national carry law if they wanted to.

Did I say that States don't have to recognize federal law? I believe what I said is that a national carry permit would exceed federal authority and that the States might properly challenge the constitutionality of the law in federal court. I think it is quite a stretch to claim that the full faith and credit clause empowers the federal government to issue national carry permits.

I don't know why I thought that the national speed limit was struck down by the SCOTUS, but it doesn't change the point I'm making ... if a federal law exceeds federal authority then the States can take it to court and the feds (supposedly) have to abide by the Constitution. Federal law only trumps State law if the matter in question is a federal matter. Otherwise, if the feds have exceeded their authority, then State law trumps federal law. Our system is considered to be a system of dual sovereignties, not a system where the federal government trumps the States.

 

[Musketeer]

National CCW would have to be a law crafted that would be the maximum restriction granted under the 2A. To make something like that work we first must see what Heller says...

 

[Yellowfin]

The Full Faith and Credit clause should be squeezed to make national reciprocity accepted without need for a law.

 

[Hugh Damright]

(deleted - duplicate post)