Federal, all states carry license.

RickE · December 21, 2009, 08:27 PM

Has there ever been any serious talk about a national ccw permit? So what if it is rigorous? Very thorough back round check, a practical test, a legal knowledge exam? Yes, many may not pass, but what about the ones that can?

SigP6Carry · December 21, 2009, 09:03 PM

given that two cities and at least one town ship don't even allow handguns in general, I doubt it would work. Plus, two states and a district don't allow carry at all. Plus, some states have extremely strict gun criteria regarding what guns can enter the state..... I don't think it would work.... at all.... due to preemptive state laws regarding firearms in general.

Don H · December 21, 2009, 09:09 PM

There is no way that I will support a federal CCW that will be administered at the whim of federal politicians. Any such permit would be much more restrictive than the state permit I have now!

Creeper · December 21, 2009, 09:24 PM

You can go on-line to see reciprocity arrangements for your (our) state with other states... that's about as close as you'll get with a NCCW for now.

C

Ladyluv · December 21, 2009, 09:54 PM

"There is no way that I will support a federal CCW that will be administered at the whim of federal politicians. Any such permit would be much more restrictive than the state permit I have now! "............................

I couldn't agree with Don more!!!!!

**Tom Servo** · December 21, 2009, 09:55 PM

Quote:

There is no way that I will support a federal CCW that will be administered at the whim of federal politicians. Any such permit would be much more restrictive than the state permit I have now!

Absolutely right. What's more, even if it were quite permissive at first, it would be child's play to add onerous restrictions as time went on. There would be some element of federal registration, either of the gun or the owner.

stevelyn · December 21, 2009, 11:22 PM

Quote:

There is no way that I will support a federal CCW that will be administered at the whim of federal politicians. Any such permit would be much more restrictive than the state permit I have now!

A federal CHL or oversite would be a very bad idea.

However, I would and do support legislation that forces states to recognize other states' CHLs by requiring they observe and enforce the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution just like they do with any other license or legal document.

gc70 · December 22, 2009, 04:20 AM

Quote:

However, I would and do support legislation that forces states to recognize other states' CHLs by requiring they observe and enforce the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution just like they do with any other license or legal document.

States are not bound to recognize "any other" licenses issued by other states. For instance, insurance companies are licensed on a state-by-state basis. The only state license that I am aware of that is recognized by all states is a drivers license, and that recognition is by mutual agreement of the states.

rwilson452 · December 22, 2009, 07:50 AM

I would submit. If you want a glimpse of what a federal concealed weapons permit would look like, Look at the federal flight deck officer program. Sorry I'll pass.

Glenn E. Meyer · December 22, 2009, 10:25 AM

Better to have states do it with reciprocity. Watching Congress leads me to think we would have a 2000 page CCW bill that will cost a fortune.

Uncle Buck · December 22, 2009, 12:29 PM

I am in the group of "it is the States business, keep the Feds out of it."

Too few politicians in this case (federal level) would mean trouble.

javabum · December 22, 2009, 12:48 PM

I'm with the group of keeping the feds out of it.States are supposed to run their own business.Things are tough enough with state CCW.The feds would screw up a free lunch,keep em out of it.

Mattnuckolls · December 23, 2009, 03:09 AM

I would have mixed feelings about this, I feel it is handled best at the state level, but it should also be recognized equivically to a drivers license. each state should respect the license your state has given to you.

Quote:

so if your a resident in another state and lets say your passing through a different state you cant have your side arm?

yes, provided that you have it either in your trunk, or not "immediately accessible" is the best approch to this, especially if you're traveling through a unfriendly gun state. many states recognize others CCP, I'm pretty sure that a new law was just passed regarding this issue too. I would say if you're traveling check out the recipricocity of the states you wish to pass through. ignorance of the law is not an exclusion to the penalties.

cbrgator · December 23, 2009, 03:10 AM

They just tried it a couple of months ago. It was a rider called the Thune Amendment. It was narrowly defeated. Didn't have any crazy restrictions. All it said was that if you are a state that offers CCW, you must recognize licenses from other states. Essentially, forced reciprocity for the 48 states that offer CCW, sans Illinois and Wisconsin. CCW licenses would have been given the same treatment as drivers licenses and marriage certificates.

Stiofan · December 23, 2009, 04:17 AM

Quote:

They just tried it a couple of months ago. It was a rider called the Thune Amendment. It was narrowly defeated. Didn't have any crazy restrictions. All it said was that if you are a state that offers CCW, you must recognize licenses from other states. Essentially, forced reciprocity for the 48 states that offer CCW, sans Illinois and Wisconsin. CCW licenses would have been given the same treatment as drivers licenses and marriage certificates.

This is correct. It was defeated in the Senate by one or two votes short of a filibuster proof majority.

It didn't allow any new powers to the Feds, it simply would have recognized our RKBA doesn't stop at our own state lines.

RickE · January 12, 2010, 04:32 PM

As I read these, I agree about the Fed's involvement. However, if administered the way it was intended, the 2nd ammendment (FED) would force the non compliant states to offer CCP's. Then mandate all states honor the CCP's. Just a thought.

Thanks everyone.

Bluesfan · January 12, 2010, 05:43 PM

A uniform law. such as the UCC,may not be a bd idea. It would keep the federal govt out of this issue and would allow a ccw holder to know what the law is in each state that participates in the compact rathe than having to keep track if the specific requirements of each state.
For example,in Missouri certian aspects of concealed carry and open carry are permissible however I cannot assume that is the case in a state that offers reciprocity.If I go to another state I have to follow that states laws and I am charged with knowledge of same. It would be very easy for a ccw holder to unwittingly get in serious trouble because that person did not know that they were breaking the law. A uniform law would help to aviod this problem. Getting 48 states to agree to this,well..........

azredhawk44 · January 12, 2010, 06:23 PM

Quote:

There is no way that I will support a federal CCW that will be administered at the whim of federal politicians. Any such permit would be much more restrictive than the state permit I have now!

Agreed.

Quote:

A uniform law. such as the UCC,may not be a bd idea. It would keep the federal govt out of this issue ...

The second you have another law, you have the Federal Government in the issue.

The last thing we need is more laws. Laws always restrict natural rights. Right now, the FedGov has no say over concealed weapons, yea or nay. Keep it that way.

Bluesfan · January 12, 2010, 06:50 PM

I agree. We don't need more laws. The problem with the current ccw laws is that there are too many of them making it easy for someone to violate with out knowing it. A uniform law is not a federal law. It is a body of law that addresses a certian subject in the same manner with the same language in the states that choose to participate.

joehorner · January 12, 2010, 07:11 PM

Case in point. Years ago the federal goverment (DOT) mandated that all states pass a motorcycle helmet law or lose federal highway funds. Delaware being small and such,said OK. You got to have a helmet in full sight. Did not say you had to wear it. It is still in effect today.

. In other words keep the feds out of so called regulations. Joe

Don H · January 12, 2010, 07:23 PM

Right now, in Utah, I can legally carry in churches, bars, all public schools, all state, county and city government buildings (except specific secure areas), intrastate public transportation, sporting events, polling places, public gatherings, city, county and state parks, etc. Why on earth would I want to support a "uniform law" that would undoubtedly make many of these places "no-carry zones"? Certainly not to make it 'convenient' for those who don't want to expend the effort to research the laws of the state(s) in which they might carry!

knight0334 · January 12, 2010, 07:58 PM

Nowhere in the US Constitution Article I, or any of the Amendments, does it authorize the Federal Government to issue a federal license. The power of the Federal Government is strictly confined to certain actions detailed in Article I Section 8 and Amendments as to the types of laws it may create.

ALL other rights and powers are reserved to the States, and the People, in the 10th Amendment.

Bluesfan · January 12, 2010, 08:21 PM

Thanks for the comment DonH. How about useing Utah as the model for the uniform law? No reason why a uniform law has to be more restrictive than what is in place. Not sure why you jumped to that conclusion.

wally626 · January 12, 2010, 08:40 PM

The least restrictive would be no permit required for open or concealed carry, I could get behind that.

When the Supremes finally get to a bear Arms case, i hope we still have enough conservatives to get a shall issue ruling for all states out of them.

Don H · January 12, 2010, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesfan

Thanks for the comment DonH. How about useing Utah as the model for the uniform law? No reason why a uniform law has to be more restrictive than what is in place. Not sure why you jumped to that conclusion.

Simply because most states are more restrictive and feel the need to be more controlling of their populace. Since most states forbid carry in many of the places I listed, and seem quite contented with those restrictions, it seems logical that those same restrictions would be included in a "uniform law". I have no reason to believe that the politicians in a great many states would embrace the idea of citizens carrying in schools, bars or, especially, in the government buildings that the politicians work in or frequent. If they did, it would already be legal in most states, wouldn't it?

Last but not least, many of those who carry are , for the most part, reasonably happy with the restrictions and see no need to carry in schools or to allow carry in bars, for example. So, where's the push for change? Of the 9,500 active members of this board, how many have bothered to get a CCW permit? Probably a whole lot more than have actively lobbied their lawmakers to loosen the carry restrictions. That just seems to be human nature.

Sorry, but the way I see it, the more-restrictive states are in the majority and any "uniform law" would, of necessity, be more restrictive than what I enjoy now.

December 21, 2009, 08:27 PM	#1
RickE Senior Member Join Date: December 18, 2009 Location: Kirkland Wa. Posts: 516	Federal, all states carry license. Has there ever been any serious talk about a national ccw permit? So what if it is rigorous? Very thorough back round check, a practical test, a legal knowledge exam? Yes, many may not pass, but what about the ones that can?

December 21, 2009, 09:03 PM	#2
SigP6Carry Senior Member Join Date: August 27, 2009 Posts: 1,086	given that two cities and at least one town ship don't even allow handguns in general, I doubt it would work. Plus, two states and a district don't allow carry at all. Plus, some states have extremely strict gun criteria regarding what guns can enter the state..... I don't think it would work.... at all.... due to preemptive state laws regarding firearms in general. __________________ -liberal gun nut = exception to the rule- -1.24274238 miles, because Russians don't need scopes- -Gun control was the Klan's favorite law, how can you advocate a set of laws designed to allow the denigration of a people?-

December 21, 2009, 09:09 PM	#3
Don H Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2000 Location: SLC,Utah Posts: 2,704	There is no way that I will support a federal CCW that will be administered at the whim of federal politicians. Any such permit would be much more restrictive than the state permit I have now! __________________ Don http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/forum/

December 21, 2009, 09:24 PM	#4
Creeper Senior Member Join Date: September 9, 2008 Location: Woooooshington Posts: 1,797	You can go on-line to see reciprocity arrangements for your (our) state with other states... that's about as close as you'll get with a NCCW for now. C __________________ Shoulder Drive Nicholson Club

December 22, 2009, 07:50 AM	#9
rwilson452 Senior Member Join Date: June 10, 2004 Location: Tioga co. PA Posts: 2,647	I would submit. If you want a glimpse of what a federal concealed weapons permit would look like, Look at the federal flight deck officer program. Sorry I'll pass. __________________ USNRET '61-'81

December 21, 2009, 09:54 PM	#5
Ladyluv Junior Member Join Date: December 21, 2009 Posts: 1	"There is no way that I will support a federal CCW that will be administered at the whim of federal politicians. Any such permit would be much more restrictive than the state permit I have now! "............................ I couldn't agree with Don more!!!!!

December 22, 2009, 10:25 AM	#10
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Better to have states do it with reciprocity. Watching Congress leads me to think we would have a 2000 page CCW bill that will cost a fortune. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

December 22, 2009, 12:29 PM	#11
Uncle Buck Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2009 Location: West Central Missouri Posts: 2,592	I am in the group of "it is the States business, keep the Feds out of it." Too few politicians in this case (federal level) would mean trouble. __________________ Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.

December 22, 2009, 12:48 PM	#12
javabum Senior Member Join Date: July 6, 2009 Location: Californication Posts: 264	I'm with the group of keeping the feds out of it.States are supposed to run their own business.Things are tough enough with state CCW.The feds would screw up a free lunch,keep em out of it. __________________ Stupidity Should Hurt.....Immensely NRA Life member

December 23, 2009, 03:10 AM	#14
cbrgator Senior Member Join Date: June 1, 2009 Posts: 135	They just tried it a couple of months ago. It was a rider called the Thune Amendment. It was narrowly defeated. Didn't have any crazy restrictions. All it said was that if you are a state that offers CCW, you must recognize licenses from other states. Essentially, forced reciprocity for the 48 states that offer CCW, sans Illinois and Wisconsin. CCW licenses would have been given the same treatment as drivers licenses and marriage certificates.

January 12, 2010, 04:32 PM	#16
RickE Senior Member Join Date: December 18, 2009 Location: Kirkland Wa. Posts: 516	As I read these, I agree about the Fed's involvement. However, if administered the way it was intended, the 2nd ammendment (FED) would force the non compliant states to offer CCP's. Then mandate all states honor the CCP's. Just a thought. Thanks everyone.

January 12, 2010, 05:43 PM	#17
Bluesfan Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2009 Posts: 102	A uniform law. such as the UCC,may not be a bd idea. It would keep the federal govt out of this issue and would allow a ccw holder to know what the law is in each state that participates in the compact rathe than having to keep track if the specific requirements of each state. For example,in Missouri certian aspects of concealed carry and open carry are permissible however I cannot assume that is the case in a state that offers reciprocity.If I go to another state I have to follow that states laws and I am charged with knowledge of same. It would be very easy for a ccw holder to unwittingly get in serious trouble because that person did not know that they were breaking the law. A uniform law would help to aviod this problem. Getting 48 states to agree to this,well..........

January 12, 2010, 06:50 PM	#19
Bluesfan Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2009 Posts: 102	I agree. We don't need more laws. The problem with the current ccw laws is that there are too many of them making it easy for someone to violate with out knowing it. A uniform law is not a federal law. It is a body of law that addresses a certian subject in the same manner with the same language in the states that choose to participate.

January 12, 2010, 07:11 PM	#20
joehorner Member Join Date: March 7, 2009 Location: WNC Posts: 66	Federal involement Case in point. Years ago the federal goverment (DOT) mandated that all states pass a motorcycle helmet law or lose federal highway funds. Delaware being small and such,said OK. You got to have a helmet in full sight. Did not say you had to wear it. It is still in effect today.. In other words keep the feds out of so called regulations. Joe

January 12, 2010, 07:23 PM	#21
Don H Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2000 Location: SLC,Utah Posts: 2,704	Right now, in Utah, I can legally carry in churches, bars, all public schools, all state, county and city government buildings (except specific secure areas), intrastate public transportation, sporting events, polling places, public gatherings, city, county and state parks, etc. Why on earth would I want to support a "uniform law" that would undoubtedly make many of these places "no-carry zones"? Certainly not to make it 'convenient' for those who don't want to expend the effort to research the laws of the state(s) in which they might carry! __________________ Don http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/forum/

January 12, 2010, 07:58 PM	#22
knight0334 Senior Member Join Date: January 1, 2006 Location: Brookville, PA Posts: 442	Nowhere in the US Constitution Article I, or any of the Amendments, does it authorize the Federal Government to issue a federal license. The power of the Federal Government is strictly confined to certain actions detailed in Article I Section 8 and Amendments as to the types of laws it may create. ALL other rights and powers are reserved to the States, and the People, in the 10th Amendment.

January 12, 2010, 08:21 PM	#23
Bluesfan Senior Member Join Date: September 28, 2009 Posts: 102	Thanks for the comment DonH. How about useing Utah as the model for the uniform law? No reason why a uniform law has to be more restrictive than what is in place. Not sure why you jumped to that conclusion.

January 12, 2010, 08:40 PM	#24
wally626 Senior Member Join Date: July 31, 2009 Posts: 642	The least restrictive would be no permit required for open or concealed carry, I could get behind that. When the Supremes finally get to a bear Arms case, i hope we still have enough conservatives to get a shall issue ruling for all states out of them.