I had a thought come to me and would like to see what others think of it.
National carry reciprocity is one of the larger gun rights goals at this time, but without a Supreme Court decision that carrying a firearm is a constitutional right, it seems that legislation is the only other option. However, in my opinion, any bill mandating that states respect other states' CC licensing would have quite a hard time passing.
So what if the legislature passed a shall-issue national permitting system with its own requirements and application? This permit would allow the license holder to carry in all 50 states and D.C. Of course, the license holder would be subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they are carrying.
Since the usual issue with CC reciprocity is differences in training requirements, the national permitting system could have its own course, training, and background check requirements.
Personally, I think that there shouldn't have to be a permitting system at all, but I would take a national permit if given the option.
So what do you all think of this idea? Would you apply for a national permit? What training requirements would you be open to? How would you feel about a permitting system at the federal level?
No, thank you.
O. Lee James, III Captain, US Army (Retired 2012), Honorable Order of St. Barbara
Safety Ministry Director, First Baptist Church Elgin
NRA, NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Instructor, Rangemaster Certified, GOA, TSRA, NAR L1
JALLEN wrote:I bet we could eventually think of something the Federal government has gotten involved in that hasn't been turned into an expensive pig's breakfast, if you give us a week.
OK; One week from today. I challenge you to find this program! Please post results by next Tuesday!
Mel
Airworthiness Inspector specializing in Experimental and Light-Sport Aircraft since the last Century.
I had a thought come to me and would like to see what others think of it.
So what if the legislature passed a shall-issue national permitting system with its own requirements and application? This permit would allow the license holder to carry in all 50 states and D.C. Of course, the license holder would be subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they are carrying.
While I understand the hypothetical situation that you are proposing. There is absolutely no way that the federal government would not mess it up. Best case would be to treat it like driver's licensing and give some minimum training requirements and then let the states manage the permitting and require reciprocity, then limit the states ability to institute "opt out" legislation. This is still not very good. If the federal government wants to limit the states in one area, then they will feel free to limit the states in whatever area they please.
LTC since 2015
I have contacted my state legislators urging support of Constitutional Carry Legislation HB 1927
Nope cause I can see them passing it while at the same time forcing states to end their licensing and prohibiting further state licensing.Then the feds will get rid of the federal permit while keeping the state licensing ban.
I prefer the idea of keeping at the state level and requiring some sort of mandated reciprocity.
From my observation, the biggest difference between states' requirements is not training issues, but how, and how extensive, background checks are performed. For example, the main reason Illinois doesn't recognize TX LTC is because we don't mandate annual mental health reports. If the Feds could somehow standardize that while allowing the states to control their own programs, would go a long way to reciprocity.
USMC, Retired
Treating one variety of person as better or worse than others by accident of birth is morally indefensible.
JALLEN wrote:I bet we could eventually think of something the Federal government has gotten involved in that hasn't been turned into an expensive pig's breakfast, if you give us a week.
How about driver's licenses? As I understand it, when DLs first came about there was a problem where some states wouldn't recognize some other state's license. The federal government came in and required all states to recognize any other state's DL, under "full faith and credit".
What would be wrong with doing the same thing with carry licenses?
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
JALLEN wrote:I bet we could eventually think of something the Federal government has gotten involved in that hasn't been turned into an expensive pig's breakfast, if you give us a week.
How about driver's licenses? As I understand it, when DLs first came about there was a problem where some states wouldn't recognize some other state's license. The federal government came in and required all states to recognize any other state's DL, under "full faith and credit".
What would be wrong with doing the same thing with carry licenses?
I doubt the Federal government "came in." It would have required a huge new bureaucracy, headquarted in "Sheets" Byrd's favorite state, with an enormous budget, research, studies to be performed by Congressmen's favored contractors, legions of administrators who by now would have concluded that individual states issuing their D/Ls was a hideously ineffective hodgepodge, and that federal oversight and issuance was essential to a completely effective hodgepodge.
I'd like to see the real story. Maybe the state administrators got together and agreed it would solve their problems to mutually cooperate. This was probably decades ago before socialism became the rage and a bureaucrat's dream come true.
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.
JALLEN wrote:I bet we could eventually think of something the Federal government has gotten involved in that hasn't been turned into an expensive pig's breakfast, if you give us a week.
How about driver's licenses? As I understand it, when DLs first came about there was a problem where some states wouldn't recognize some other state's license. The federal government came in and required all states to recognize any other state's DL, under "full faith and credit".
What would be wrong with doing the same thing with carry licenses?
I doubt the Federal government "came in." It would have required a huge new bureaucracy, headquarted in "Sheets" Byrd's favorite state, with an enormous budget, research, studies to be performed by Congressmen's favored contractors, legions of administrators who by now would have concluded that individual states issuing their D/Ls was a hideously ineffective hodgepodge, and that federal oversight and issuance was essential to a completely effective hodgepodge.
I'd like to see the real story. Maybe the state administrators got together and agreed it would solve their problems to mutually cooperate. This was probably decades ago before socialism became the rage and a bureaucrat's dream come true.
I wish I knew how to find it. It's just what I have been told.
Yes, "came in" was just a manner of speaking... my manner of speaking.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
Well, it seems that everyone is against any type of federal permitting system (even though no one gave any reasons beyond that the Feds would mess it up).
Is there anything that would make you all consider such a program? I'm just spitballing and hoping to start a worthwhile discussion.
There's been a bunch of well written and funny responses, so I'll just say, keep the Feds out of it. Rely on State Laws and agreements. Don't erode the 10th any more than it has been.
Jeff B.
Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns. - Joe Huffman
Jeff B. wrote:There's been a bunch of well written and funny responses, so I'll just say, keep the Feds out of it. Rely on State Laws and agreements. Don't erode the 10th any more than it has been.
Jeff B.
Hear! Hear! I'm glad it says Texas on my license. I love me some 'Murica, but I love Texas best.
My point of view is there is no Constitutional basis for the Federal government to regulate the wearing of arms. It's a purely state matter as are most criminal laws. SCOTUS rejected the original Gun Free Safe School Zones Act in US vs. Lopez. Congress came back with some "interstate commerce" mumbo jumbo, and it has yet to work it's way back to the Supreme Court. Personally I think the NFA 34 and GCA 68 are overreach too, but my opinion hasn't been shared by SCOTUS...
Put it in another context...why don't we have Federal Driving Licenses? Because it's a State matter. I even think LEOSA was unconstitutional, even though it expanded gun rights (for cops).
Over the last 100 years the Federal government has massively expanded its control over all aspects of daily life at the expense of the States. It's far past time to start dialing it back.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
I even think LEOSA was unconstitutional, even though it expanded gun rights (for cops).