TexaFats, At first blush, to me it seems reasonable that if the one state in effect can impose its decisions on the fitness of an individual for a CCW, that there should be the uniformity created by fedral standards. Think about it,
If one lives in a state with a very thin population and few law enforcement officers per its vast territory, the pressure is on a resident to provide for his own protection. The likelihood of accidental shootings may also be less than it is in a densly populated state.
Taking all things into consideration, state one may opt for very low standards to CCW. Densely populated state 2 with a tax basis able to support a large constabulary may decide that higher standards best assure the safety and welfare of its residents.
Why then should State 2's residents nevertheless have State 1's standards, with risks that were acceptablt to the people of that state but were rejected by those of State 2, imposed upon it.
Some gun rights supporters talk a lot about liberty, but why should the people of one state in effect delegate their legislative rights to the people of a sister state?
The same people might rightly argue that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
In actuality, who is affronted by the refusal of certain states to grant comity to the licesees of shall issue states? I don't think many of the agrieved persons are residents of shall issue states, although many would wish to carry when travelling. Isn't it the residents of states like California that cover the right of citzens of other states to carry concealed, but the truth is that many Cali citizens don't want a loose CCW policy.
I am not saying they are right or wrong and the more I look into the CCW issue the more I think it a good thing, but I think it is wrong for Cali to be forced to govern its state according to the laws of another place.
Last edited by TheKlawMan; April 25, 2012 at 10:13 PM.