Interstate Concealed Carry permits?

[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]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

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]

Originally Posted by adamBomb

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]

Originally Posted by kraigwy

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]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

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.

Do you mean we should make some more compromises?

Suggested reading: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2.../a-repost.html

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by NateKirk

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.

I’m curious what kind of compromises your thinking of that hasn’t already been made?

[Bullrock]

Its up to the courts to decide what it means

I would kindly disagree with that, because of State's rights regarding firearms. Recently a Freshman State Congressman from Maine, introduced a bill,that would allow "anyone" other than convicted felons, to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. It easily passed, and was effective Oct. 13th.

I've had a CCP (former military & LEO) for years. Two weeks ago a lady followed me home, cut me off in front of my garage, and approached without fear, had her hands in her pockets, and calmly accused me of cutting her off a couple of miles back at an intersection.

I was about to call 911 when she left. But, she had me thinking! How many women would be that aggressive toward a full grown man, she didn't know? Some, maybe! But, thinking about it, she was probably armed.

So, I'm back to carrying again. People carrying without any requirement for safety training, or background checks makes me nervous. I'm all for Freedom, and Gun Freedom, but we can't have it both ways. I'd rather have the CCP law in effect, than not.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Bullrock

So, I'm back to carrying again. People carrying without any requirement for safety training, or background checks makes me nervous. I'm all for Freedom, and Gun Freedom, but we can't have it both ways. I'd rather have the CCP law in effect, than not.

What's the other option, then? Either we have freedom, or we don't have freedom.

Just to reflect the fact that I work in the Department of Redundancy Department, I'll just mention (again) that the Second Amendment does not establish any training requirement for guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. If you have to get a permission slip from the state, it's no longer a right, it's a privilege.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A training requirement is an infringement.

[Hunter Customs]

People carrying without any requirement for safety training, or background checks makes me nervous.

Bullrock, mandatory training is no guarantee, I can speak of numerous incidents where LEO's that were trained that had negligent discharges with their firearms injuring themselves or innocent people.

Background checks also is no guarantee, as a matter of fact both may very well be a false sense of security.

I'm all for people training/practicing with their firearm to be proficient but not government regulated training.

We need less government not more.

[Tinbucket]

I see one specifically and more that imply that "Judicial Supremacy" or Judge made political Law establishes what is our Rights.
That seems to be the case in many areas but is not what our Constitution says.
it is up to Congress and Senate and Executive branch to remove if need be activist Judges.
The Constitution is Supreme Law of the Land.
it is the duty, of every Official, LEO and Citizen to insure it is complied with and not modified or eliminated by a Court or Politician.
They took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution not given a Rulers staff and told change the Constitution or ignore it or dow whatever your ideas on it are.

[Cosmodragoon]

People carrying without any requirement for safety training, or background checks makes me nervous. I'm all for Freedom, and Gun Freedom, but we can't have it both ways. I'd rather have the CCP law in effect, than not.

That's how it is in Vermont. There is no registration. There are no permits. The only requirement for carrying a gun is that you be at least sixteen years of age. It's been that way for as long as I know. It just happens to be the safest state in the Union.

[DA/SA Fan]

Its up to the courts to decide what it means

WRONG!!! It means what it says. It's up to the courts to decide whether or not it applies to a specific case. The Supreme court has over stepped it's power and gotten away with it. Doesn't mean they have the power under the constitution.

[Bullrock]

Bullrock, mandatory training is no guarantee, I can speak of numerous incidents where LEO's that were trained that had negligent discharges with their firearms injuring themselves or innocent people.

Background checks also is no guarantee, as a matter of fact both may very well be a false sense of security.

I'm all for people training/practicing with their firearm to be proficient but not government regulated training.

We need less government not more.

I know that! I've been a conservative for more years than you have probably been alive! I didn't preach against the right to bear arms, or guarantees. I said it makes me nervous. At 80 years of age allot of things make me nervous today, that is why I'm carrying again..

I'm a former LEO. As far some LEOs are concerned. The only LEO AD I've seen was in a school room, when his Glock went off in his pants...lol.. I'm sure there have been more, however...

[NateKirk]

Bullrock, mandatory training is no guarantee, I can speak of numerous incidents where LEO's that were trained that had negligent discharges with their firearms injuring themselves or innocent people.

Background checks also is no guarantee, as a matter of fact both may very well be a false sense of security.

Those of us who are grown up know that there are no guarantees about anything (except death and taxes) but what you have basically just said is that since neither more training or background checks will guarentee that there wont be problems we shouldn't bother with them. You have to look at it in cost/gain terms. What will people have to sacrifice for more training and background checks vs. how many problems will it prevent. At the cost of some convenience and probably another 100 bucks to cover the new material in a better CPL course, you will have less idiots on the street with deadly weapons. Speaking of idiots on the street here is a local case
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/c...fters/35813934

But I mean she took the basic CPL class so she must be qualified right?

We all have a right to bear arms, but bearing arms carries with it a great responsibility. Those who cannot meet the responsibility of a right should be restricted in the exercise thereof. That means setting a standard.