Should we have a national concealed carry law...

[spin]

Nationalization of concealed carry laws would make things in this country simpler and much safer.

Currently, under federal legal precedent it is legal for states to allow concealed carry with a permit, or even with no permit at all, says Laurie Ekstrand, established author. By nationalizing concealed carry laws, all states would have to have the same regulations governing concealed carry, making things much simpler than in the status quo. Because this would require permits to be issued and background checks to be conducted before concealed carry would be allowed, things would be much safer. This would also impose strict regulations on who can carry a concealed weapon and where they can carry it, thus making the chances of accident or misuse much slimmer.

Some opponents of this legislation may argue that because this bill encourages gun sales, it also encourages crime. This, however, is untrue. According to the FBI and the US Department of the Treasury, in 2005, gun sales were up 2.6%, while gun crimes were down 2.4%, with the overall trend since 1998 being that firearm and ammunition sales were up 27.7%, while firearm crimes were down 7%. These statistics clearly prove that just because more guns are sold, there are not more firearm crimes. But, if you're still not convinced, look at Florida for example. David Kopel, Research Director at Independence Institute comments on Florida's concealed carry experience: "What we can say, with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315 thousand permits have been issued, there are only 5 known instances of violent gun crimes by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian... 840 times less likely to commit a violent gun crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." If the rest of the country behaved like Florida's permit holders, the United States would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. emphasis mine
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2283371/why_the_united_states_should_nationalize.html?cat=9

I live in Florida and have a Florida concealed carry permit. While I can see some advantages to a national concealed carry license, I worry that obtaining one would be so expensive, time consuming and difficult that many lower income people would be discouraged from obtaining one.

The basic reason behind gun control has always been to keep "those people" from obtaining firearms.

[Craftsman]

1. A national share issue law would be nice

[proteus_lives]

2. I would be favor of one.

[zipplewrath]

3. Seems a bit "federalist"

You're talking about pushing even more gun laws and regulations up to the federal level. As it is, these issues are handled at a state level and as such Arizona can have much different laws than Rhode Island. How much do the people in Montana want the folks in Conneticutt to have a say in their carry laws?

[Hoopla Phil]

54. I agree. A simple federal law that says that if a state issues CHL's

then it must recognize all other states CHL's is all that is needed.

[damntexdem]

4. Only if it outlawed concealed carry nationally.

Certainly the feds shouldn't force concealed carry on the few states rational enough to outlaw it.

[TheWraith]

5. Yeah, those states deserve to be able to ban, say, abortion. Or being gay.

Hear how stupid and reactionary that sounds when it's about banning a right that you agree with?

[baldguy]

7. fail.

[TheWraith]

9. So you're saying the Constitution does not trump "states rights?"

Black people would disagree.

So would the Supreme Court when they ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. Or in Brown vs. Board of Education.

[baldguy]

11. The Constitution spells out the concepts of equal protection, individual privacy

AND the role & purpose of local militias - including specific need of regulation of those militias.

Please stop making a fool of yourself.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. So then you'd support national Open Carry?

Good to know.

I prefer to concealed carry, but hey, I don't bother going to states that don't have reciprocity with WA anyway.

[baldguy]

18. That's not what the Constitution says.

Militias have always been under state & local control. State and local laws regulate them. Montana shouldn't be allowed to tell Manhattan who can carry a weapon & under what circumstances.

The trouble is that gun worshipers want to ignore the Constitution, federal, state & local law.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. You should probably read the Militia Act of 1792.

1 year after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment. You know, before you spout off "Militas have always been under state and local control".

Because AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAA

Edit: Linky
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

Also, tell me, what do you think the 2nd means by 'bear arms'?

[baldguy]

22. The President is the Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.

But, if he wants to use the state militia he still has the ASK the Governor of that state.

Try again.

[-..__...]

23. You mean like when...

Eisenhower asked the Governor of Arkansas if it was okay to send in the National Guard to Little Rock... or when JFK asked George Wallace if he didn't mind sending in the troops at the University of Alabama?

Do you know what the term "federalized" means?

[baldguy]

26. You do realize that a court can act when elected officials refuses or are unable to?

Now, stop trying to befuddle yourself & the other gun worshipers with nonsense. Under normal circumstances, states determine gun laws. Under normal circumstances, states have always determined gun laws.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. I think the folks on the International Space Station can hear me laughing from here.

Man that's a good one.

I'm sure this is why Federal law on firearms easily exceeds every last law ever passed in my State (Washington) regarding firearms in volume of text, and frequency.

Though, on two points, State Law is more RESTRICTIVE than Federal. It's possible to legally possess a fully automatic weapon under Federal Law if you jump through enough hoops. But not in WA. It's prohibited here.

[baldguy]

32. So ... your STATE determines the gun laws of your state.

Right?

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Yes.

For state laws only.

The Federal Government has established many laws that simply over-ride state law on Firearms. More Federal Laws than we actually HAVE state laws, regarding firearms in fact.

That's why your statement is so funny.

State Law, for instance, does not mandate a background check.


There are two instances, as I mentioned earlier, of State Law (in the case of Washington) exceeding Federal Law, WRT firearms. You may not attach a silencer to a firearm, and you may not possess a select-fire weapon, unless you are Law Enforcement, Active Duty Military, or a manufacturer engaged in the making or repairing of said NFA weapons, for lawful customers.

There are far, far more Federal Laws in play around Firearms, than there are State Laws, in the case of Washington. I'm hard pressed to think of any state with more applicable laws.

[PavePusher]

43. California possibly. But I sure don't have the time or inclination to count 'em. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

45. That's a good point, California still has pretty much the 1994 AWB on the books.

Not sure how NFA weapons play out there, but yeah, California would be a more stringent example in some cases.

[paulsby]

55. the prevailing issue is this

no state can, on ANY issue, be more restrictive of any right recognized under the federal constitution

they can, and often are, more protective of many rights. some states even have additional rights not mentioned in the constitution

WA's constitution for example, explicitly mentions a right to privacy. that is why WA leo's are MUCH more restricted in search and seizure than federal agents.

to give one example, DUI checkpoints are illegal under WA's constitution.

*if* one believes that concealed carry is a right guaranteed by the second, then of course no state could outlaw concealed carry.

i, personally, believe this, but it is not (yet) the viewpoint of the scotus. their viewpoint matters, mine doesn't, at least in a de jure sense.

[GreenStormCloud]

28. Really? There are lots of national firearms laws on the books.

There is the NFA of 1934, the 1968 Gun Control Act, and other major pieces of legislation in which the Feds tell the states what to do. This would simply be one more.

[gorfle]

49. Which is why we need incorporation.

Under normal circumstances, states determine gun laws. Under normal circumstances, states have always determined gun laws.

Just like it used to be "normal circumstances" for states to determine civil rights laws.

This is why the second amendment needs incorporation. The right to keep and bear arms is too essential a liberty for some states to restrict it or essentially destroy it.

[rl6214]

65. Then please explain to us

Who it was that passed the AWB in 1994.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Your definition of 'ask' is apparently not based in any dictionary I am aware of.

Also, the Militia Act of 1792 is no longer in force, having been superceded several times since with additional FEDERAL laws.

You were wrong. Apparently that is difficult to admit.

[one-eyed fat man]

63. you are mistaken

There is plenty of case law that disputes that. The National Guard can be given an Army mission without having to wait for a "call" to be issued by the various state governors. In August 1940, President Roosevelt ordered the National Guard of the United States into active service. Governors, had NO CHOICE.

Melvin Laird tried to prevent the activation of the Wisconsin Guard during the Berlin crisis in 1961, and LOST.

In 1987, 'Perpich v United States Dep't of Defense', several governors tried to keep Guard units from training overseas and LOST.

Dukais tried in 1986, he LOST too! Dukakis v. 'United States Dep't of Defense'

In short, what the Dick Act did in 1903 with the establishment of the National Guard was have the Federal government train, equip and pay members of 'State Militias' in exchange for the right to Federalize them at will. The governors get to use them when Washington isn't.

The United States Code presently distinguishes the "organized" militia, known as the National Guard, from the "unorganized" militia, known as the "militia of the United States." See 10 U.S.C. § 311(b) (1988). The militia of the United States is defined as "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard." 10 U.S.C. § 311(a) (1988).

[-..__...]

24. He should probably read...

the DC v Heller decision as well... it's a real eye opener. :smoke:

[Ter]

38. It clearly means private militias

N/T.

[rl6214]

64. WOW, didn't take long for the

'gun worshippers' lable to come out. Grow up and come back with a reasonable discussion.

[TheWraith]

14. Stop rewriting the constitution.

Please explain where the Constitution describes the "role and purpose of local militias" and the "specific need of regulation."

Also please research what the word "regulated" meant in colonial times. Here's a hint: it doesn't mean what you think it does.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Bah you're no fun.

And you'll get nowhere with that one.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. The USSC has already ruled.

The 2nd is an individual right, not tied to any service in a militia.

In a few months, it will almost certainly be incorporated against the states and cities.

[PavePusher]

40. "This word 'regulation'...

I do not think it means what you think it means...", at least not in the day when it was penned into the Second Amendment. But we've been over that ad nauseum, so I doubt we'll be able to change your mind.

+1 for the Princess Bride paraphrase.

Looking for the hat trick...

[gorfle]

48. On militias.

The Constitution spells out the concepts of equal protection, individual privacy AND the role & purpose of local militias - including specific need of regulation of those militias.

This has been covered numerous times, and I know you have been around long enough to see it.

Firstly, the well-regulated militias our founders intended to exist have not existed since 1903, when they were usurped by the federal government.

Secondly, well-regulated in the 18th century did not mean "constrained by regulation", it meant "well-functioning", such as a "well regulated clock". In fact, highly-accurate 18th century pendulum clocks were called "regulator clocks".

Thirdly, it is the militias that are well-regulated, not the Arms, nor The People.

Fourthly, by the Dick Act of 1903, all able-bodied men aged 17-45 are in the Unorganized Militia if they are not in the Organized Militia (National Guard).

Fifthly, Heller has made it settled law by the Supreme Court that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in any organization, like a militia.

Please stop making a fool of yourself.

Indeed.

[burrfoot]

61. ??

Who is looking like a fool here? Could you please explain to me just what the constitution says about the need to regulate militias, and- more to the point- what is meant by regulation?



In the words of that most famous of bald dudes, "A policy is a temporary creed liable to be changed, but while it holds good it has got to be pursued with apostolic zeal."

In other words, if you don't like it- go change it. Until then...well, obviously you're not going to support it. How about we settle for not infringing on the rights of those who do?

[baldguy]

6. +1000. Gun licensing & regulation has always been under the perview of state & local authorities.

And gun worshipers don't have enough respect for those laws as at is. What ever happened to the concept of states' rights?

[DonP]

8. States rights? Take it up with your buddy George Wallace

He was a big believer in states rights along with the other Dixiecrats.

There's a good reason states rights people went to the GOP, they were a lot more comfortable there and they had better softener for their sheets.

Make yourself at home.

[baldguy]

10. double fail

[DonP]

52. Another cogent reply

Well, I've been schooled, he used the dreaded "double fail" words. I'll just go back to my room and sulk now.

That seems to be the only level of response gun control advocates offer anymore. I guess we shouldn't expect much from them and we'll never be disappointed.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. So then you agree with Montana's stance on federal guns laws?

Montana is claiming that as long as a gun is made in MT, and sold in MT, and stays in MT, then federal laws don't apply. That is a state's rights stance that they are claiming under the 10th. Are you agreeing that MT has that right?

[gorfle]

51. ...chirp...chirp...chirp...

Strange, I hear nothing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. Aww, he took off. And I was gonna ask him about Prop. 8 in California

I think he left an unpainted strip just wide enough to get out of the corner...

[gorfle]

50. "gun worshipers don't have enough respect for those laws."

And gun worshipers don't have enough respect for those laws as at is.

Did you read the article summary quoted above? "Gun worshipers", with whom I'm sure you would include Floridian CCW permit holders, have such a respect for the law that they are 840 TIMES LESS LIKELY to commit violent firearm crimes than your average non-CCW permit holding Floridian.

If that's not a respect for the law, I don't know what is.

What ever happened to the concept of states' rights?

You might be able to smell a faint trace of them still in Appomattox.

[gorfle]

47. Why outlaw it?

Only if it outlawed concealed carry nationally. Certainly the feds shouldn't force concealed carry on the few states rational enough to outlaw it.

Why outlaw it? Did you even read the portion of the article quoated? Floridian CCW permit holders are 840 times less likely to commit violent gun crimes than your average Floridian.

840 times less likely!

What could you possibly achieve by disallowing these extremely law-abiding people from carrying concealed firearms?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

12. National reciprocity with set minimum qualification standards and 5 year renewals.

That is the best way to do it. Continue with local state licensure and expand reciprocity to all states with CCW law.
I think the only qualification standards that differ are shooting proficiency and hours of training/instruction.
Just choose one of the strict state's CCW requirements as the minimum so all states already comply with the minimum standard.
This would really piss off places where CCW is legally allowed but not granted in practice due to asshole chiefs/sheriffs.

Even better would be to allow such CCW permits to be valid in EVERY state... not just other CCW states.
Alas, heads would explode and regressive states would never vote for it - thus killing such a bill.

[RamboLiberal]

17. I'm with you on that

Right now with my PA permit I can carry in nearly half the states legally. And what's preventing PA in some neighbor states like Ohio probably is that PA has no training requirement. Just go to the county sheriff with $25 & a clean record & you will most likely get a LTCF. Be nice if my LTCF was treated like my driver's license in all of U.S.

And I wouldn't mind if I had to take a course & prove my firearms proficiency.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

33. Agreed.

Performance requirements are a joke for the average enthusiast.
And the class requirements are extremely beneficial to shooters.
I would consider myself an avid firearms enthusiast and still learned alot from my CCW class.

[RamboLiberal]

57. Exactly - Just to be sure I did take a course on Concealed Carry

Plus a Tactical Handgun Course. And I keep up my proficiency with shooting matches. And doing that makes me want to avoid if at all possible situations where I might need to draw a handgun. I hope I never have to use my weapon other than at the gun range.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

58. I think people who carry should be required to compete in USPSA/IDPA

It's unreal how good of a shot a gun-guy can be standing still in a shooting lane at the range and simultaneously how terrible they will suck running & gunning. USPSA has been the single greatest aid to my shooting skill. Muzzle direction control, reloading, speed, trigger finger, drawing, moving... it's unreal how many factors can play into a life or death situation and 90% of shooters only practice squeezing the trigger.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I think it's painfully obvious that the 2nd and supporting SC decisions require Must Issue.

But beyond that, it should be up to local state regulation, on training and other requirements.

[Tim01]

19. If we had a national law, we could loose it in one shot.

I would rather we each had our own state law.

[spin]

36. Agree on that point! (n/t)

[-..__...]

20. Baby steps.

Took 69 years for the individual RKBA to be affirmed by the SCOTUS.

Roughly 20 years for 48 states to allow CCW in one fashion or another.

Roughly 10-12 years for the "Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act" to pass (which I disagreed with... what's good for LEOs, is good for civilians).

We did much better than most had expected at the beginning of the year with the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009".

Gun owners can CCW in National parks now.

I anticipate good news when the SCOTUS hears McDonald v Chicago early next year.

In the batters box... Alan Gura has already filed a lawsuit that would extended the RKBA for DC residents outside the home.

The gun control house of cards is getting closer to collapsing every day.

With any luck... national reciprocity for CCW holders could happen within the next few years.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. How about a dual level system?

Many people rarely travel out of state. Others, due to their jobs or due to geography are frequently crossing state borders.

Allow states to continue to issue state CCWs, limited to their states. Other states could have reciprocity agreements, like now. The national CCW would have a higher standard (But a fair standard, reachable by most people.)and would allow unrestricted carry. Unrestricted as to state, parks, schools, courts, airlines, airports, trains, interstate trucks, hospitals, etc.

[spin]

37. Never thought of that, but I like your plan...

I haven't traveled outside of Florida and Georgia in almost 20 years. I have little or no reason to own a national CCW.

[GreenStormCloud]

42. I would get one to be rid of the state restrictions.

But otherwise, I haven't been outside of Texas for years. About 15 years ago, I had a job that required extensive land travel. One would have been nice back then.

[X_Digger]

35. I would prefer a system like for driver's licenses (DLA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Agreement

(The wikipedia page talks more about sharing infractions, but in the early 60's it was used to standardize licensing between the member states.)

[ManiacJoe]

39. US constitution article 4 section 1 ought to be enough.

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state ..."

[oneshooter]

41. A system of agreements between all states

That allow the permits issued by each state to be honored by all. The main caveat being that the bearer must obey the CCL laws of that state, just as you must obey the traffic laws in each state.Those states that do not issue CCl would not be forced to allow CCl in their state. But can not disallow the residents of their state from obtaining a out of state CCL.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[ManiacJoe]

46. Similar to the current driver license agreements then.

[oneshooter]

60. That is correct..

The national law would recognize the right of the states to issue, or not issue CCl's. IT would NOT set any standards, leaving that up to each state.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

44. Jebus. Are you people serious?

I would only accept a National level permiting requirement if it is free of charge, requires only a background check, allows Open or Concealed carry EVERYWHERE (all States, Territories and Protectorates) and over-rides any restrictions on NFA items.

Any other conditions will be accepted ONLY if similar restrictions/requirements are enforced for the excercise of all other Civil RIGHTS.

Yeah, I know I'm pipe-dreaming, but if anyone tried to sausage any other Amendment the way we do the Second, we'd already be in a shooting revolution.

[Hoopla Phil]

53. I'd rather see a national law that makes each state recognize other states.

Do it like driver license. Keep the federal regulation out of it as much as possible. If a state issues CHL's then that state MUST recognize all states CHL's. Simple.

[benEzra]

56. I would very much oppose one in the current political climate...

and here's why:

By nationalizing concealed carry laws, all states would have to have the same regulations governing concealed carry, making things much simpler than in the status quo....This would also impose strict regulations on who can carry a concealed weapon and where they can carry it

Since almost all states already restrict concealed carry to people with clean records who meet age standards, he has to be talking about taking licensure in a much more elitist direction, in which peons like me would probably have a harder time qualifying.

The status quo is not overly complicated, and it is far better than a nationalized system would be in the current climate. I would vehemently oppose such an effort at this point, I think.

[spin]

59. I totally agree with you. (n/t0