1 permit for all states?

[jtg452]

I'm right there with you on this topic, Jim. If a Illinois driver's license is good in all 50 states, then why won't King Richard and his cronies recognize MY Alabama Concealed Carry Permit? Both are state issued and both meet the standards laid out by the issuing state.

[eldonvieira]

Article 4 section 1 of our constitution, which is being ignored

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

A concealed weapons permit is a public act and record. I also agree that they should not be required through the second amendment (the right to bear arms) just another example of them ignoring the constitution.

[maybejim]

Article 4 section 1 of our constitution, which is being ignored

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

A concealed weapons permit is a public act and record. I also agree that they should not be required through the second amendment (the right to bear arms) just another example of them ignoring the constitution.

Maybe a law suit can be filed once McDonald vs Chicago (I think that's the case going to the SC now). It's going to take legal action. The problem is someone may have to be arrested to get standing. That's a big problem.

[Rachkir]

One good thing, Boxer is up for reelection... and the way MA went with Senator (elect) Brown, she might be done. But unfortunately, the current system is that STATE governements set the requirements/limitations (for the most part).

Heck, it should be as easy as adding a CC endorsement to your DL, or instituting a federal CC permit (like a TWIC card, or a federal ID)... even though I think it should be unrestricted.

Heck, I've had to go through more background checks and security checks with my job, my CC applications, and purchases in the past 3 years that someone in the "NICS background check room" must think he/she knows me pretty well.

[gdcleanfun]

The standard should be that you are not prohibited from owning a gun. Every drivers license, no matter from what state, is recognized by every other state. It is as I understand, protected under the Constitution. So it seems pretty clear that the same is true of a Carry Permit since the Right to keep and bear arms is protected under the Constitution. Our politicians have chosen to ignore the Constitution in a lot of ways, particularly the 2nd Amendment. It's time to restore the Constitution to the Supreme Law of the Nation.

That makes the most sense of all!

[PX4storm]

Like WTF, the 2nd amendment should be enough !

YouTube - Texas Monthly Talks TED NUGENT

[torontogunguy]

What I advocate is a NATIONAL RECIPROCITY LAW that states something to the effect that if you possess a concealed carry or any other firearm permit from ANY state in the union; that permit will be honoured by ALL other states regardless of the requirements to obtain that permit, regardless of where you live, as long as you are a citizen of the United States of America. There are many citizens (remember "We the People?") that do not live stateside for whatever reason, usually work related and they should not be penalized for not having a permanent US address. As far as standards are concerned... I think we can assume that (a) the second amendment taken into consideration every one of "We the People" has the right to bear arms, and (b) one state should have a little confidence that another state is not going to issue a concealed carry permit to criminals, felons, thugs and imbeciles... sorta like drivers licenses, right?

Therefore the Federal statute is short and sweet. "Any citizen of the United States of America bearing a legal and legitimate permit to carry a concealed firearm or bear arms otherwise shall be permitted to exercise that right throughout these United States without restriction except Federal Law XXX"; to restrict this right shall be considered a Felony of Class XX punishable by YY."

How much simpler can it get? I don't know what the motor vehicle law looks like but am sure it is not much more complicated. State laws remain in effect (i.e. cannot carry in federal buildings, the legislature, post offices, Dunkin Donut stores, whatever", but the ESSENCE of the reciprocity is the key. Same as some states have speed limits of X and others of Y. Get the picture?

The Supreme Court, having decided in Heller that the right to bear arms in the 2A is valid - the rest should be an easy ride and for the life of me I cannot understand why politicians cannot hear and follow the wish of the people. "We the People".

Nuff said?






QUOTE=VTLO910;108985]The only issue with a national issue permit is it would have to be governed by Federal Law. Being that, if you got denied in ANY of the states to carry, even if for something stupid, you would likely be banned from carry/application in ALL states... This was one of the issues that came up a few years back when it was being pursued...

If states could just all get along and accept reciprocity from any other state, that would be good...

Or even a council for CCW that allows all the states to agree on training/issue requirements.[/QUOTE]

[maybejim]

I still go with no license needed for exercising your right to keep and bear arms. Any license is an "infringement".

[torontogunguy]

I still go with no license needed for exercising your right to keep and bear arms. Any license is an "infringement".

I could not agree with you more. But the plain fact is that we all know that this is not going to happen in our lifetime and the best we can hope for is total reciprocity, like drivers licenses.

The second amendment speaks for itself from our point of view. We seem to believe that we know what the founding fathers had in mind and I believe it was that the people SHOULD BE armed, not only for self protection but for protection against tyranny, from which most were escaping in Europe. That having been said, it just isn't going to happen as it is politically incorrect at the moment.

Step 1 - mutual reciprocity
Step 2 - elimination of Step 1 and recognition of the Second Amendment for what it was intended to be.

[maybejim]

I could not agree with you more. But the plain fact is that we all know that this is not going to happen in our lifetime and the best we can hope for is total reciprocity, like drivers licenses.

The second amendment speaks for itself from our point of view. We seem to believe that we know what the founding fathers had in mind and I believe it was that the people SHOULD BE armed, not only for self protection but for protection against tyranny, from which most were escaping in Europe. That having been said, it just isn't going to happen as it is politically incorrect at the moment.

Step 1 - mutual reciprocity
Step 2 - elimination of Step 1 and recognition of the Second Amendment for what it was intended to be.

I don't disagree. But both Step 1 and Step 2 will need a lawsuit and probably an arrest to get standing. So I wonder if after the Chicago case it might simply be best to go directly to Step 2.