1 permit for all states?

[Ektarr]

Every drivers license, no matter from what state, is recognized by every other state. It is as I understand, protected under the Constitution.

Unless I'm reading this wrong (and I've read it several times just to be sure of what I think you're saying) you are incorrect . . . there is no Constitutional guarantee to drive, or to have a driver's license. Driving is a privilege that is bestowed by the individual licensing entity (e.g., the State) after satisfying certain requirements: passing a written and driving exam, for example, and the paying of a fee. A better example would be that I could drive a car that's a real piece of crap and licensed in, say, Arizona, where there is no Motor Vehicle inspection requirement, and I would be legal to drive it in New Jersey which DOES have a Vehicle Inspection standard, even though that vehicle would never pass inspection here.

[maybejim]

Unless I'm reading this wrong (and I've read it several times just to be sure of what I think you're saying) you are incorrect . . . there is no Constitutional guarantee to drive, or to have a driver's license. Driving is a privilege that is bestowed by the individual licensing entity (e.g., the State) after satisfying certain requirements: passing a written and driving exam, for example, and the paying of a fee. A better example would be that I could drive a car that's a real piece of crap and licensed in, say, Arizona, where there is no Motor Vehicle inspection requirement, and I would be legal to drive it in New Jersey which DOES have a Vehicle Inspection standard, even though that vehicle would never pass inspection here.

It's not about any guarantee to drive. It's about a state having to recognize another state's rules and regulations like a driver's license or like a car license. In this case it is about recognizing a Carry Permit. Of course if you actually read the Constitution as written, no carry "permit" is necessary. But a start would be to force partial recognition of the Constitution by making each state recognize the rights and priveledges of another state's citizen.

[AvidshooterTX]

You've all bought into the driving being a privilege thing too. Why is that? A lot of our founders didn't want a bill of rights because they believed that if we listed some rights that's all we'd have. He have a right to go from place to place freely. Nobody ever had a horse and buggy license. When automobiles came along nobody was licensed for years. In this society it is damned hard to live without a car. It should not be a privilege to be able to move freely from one place to another. Just because the technology has gotten better does not mean that movement should be regulated any more than speech because there is TV - nor firearms because there are automatic weapons.

[maybejim]

You've all bought into the driving being a privilege thing too. Why is that? A lot of our founders didn't want a bill of rights because they believed that if we listed some rights that's all we'd have. He have a right to go from place to place freely. Nobody ever had a horse and buggy license. When automobiles came along nobody was licensed for years. In this society it is damned hard to live without a car. It should not be a privilege to be able to move freely from one place to another. Just because the technology has gotten better does not mean that movement should be regulated any more than speech because there is TV - nor firearms because there are automatic weapons.

One thing at a time. Let's get every Carry Permit recognized everywhere. Then let's get a government "permission" slip thrown out all together for a Constitutionally guaranteed innate right. Then we can worry about driving.

[torontogunguy]

One thing at a time. Let's get every Carry Permit recognized everywhere. Then let's get a government "permission" slip thrown out all together for a Constitutionally guaranteed innate right. Then we can worry about driving.

Now you have it! No arrests. No court cases. That muddies the waters royally by creating common law that is just as valid as statute law passed by legislation and needs people to decipher who would rather not, really, go against the grain of anything or anyone (like one doctor testifying against another, get it?).

Let's work our politicians to get mutual reciprocity (and I personally think that taken it is doable). It's sorta like "how do you eat an elephant?". Answer: "one bite at a time". Take the first step and go for mutual reciprocity with adjacent states. "What - you don't trust us?" and so on. Then a national law or agreement. Then Step 2 - revert to the second amendment and other parts of the constitution and throw out Step 1 as it is, in fact, unconstitutional and replace it a ruling that permits are not even necessary.

When the heck did this permit thing start anyway? I can remember my grandfather dressing and tucking a wee, wee revolver or derringer into his vest pocket, same as his watch. Did he require a permit to do so? I don't think so. I'd sure like to find some material on the history of 'licensing' for concealed or open carry. It is totally, totally unconstitutional and that, Jack, was a fact until some point in time, perhaps when we were disarming the boys coming home from the Civil War who were half baked and would just as soon shoot you as have a pee?

Sorry to be so blunt but the route to our desired end is crystal clear to me. It is only the anti-gun nuts and the politicians looking for their money and votes that seem to get in the way.

Empirical data speaks for itself and the empirical data, as published by our governments themselves, show that concealed carry does NOT result in a bloodbath but rather lowers the violent crime rate. And one of those pieces of empirical data is that some 2.5 MILLION violent crimes are thwarted every year by honest citizens bearing arms (and who knows how many are not reported?).

Let's get mutual recognition/reciprocity one bite at a time - and then worry about getting rid of the permits altogether when it doesn't seem like such a big deal. Frankly, I prefer that we weed out the felons, whackos and space cadets somehow, regardless of what the constitutions says. Or do we let the natural order of things straighten out the gene pool?

[Rachkir]

Wholeheartedly agree with you, Toronto!

[maybejim]

Now you have it! No arrests. No court cases. That muddies the waters royally by creating common law that is just as valid as statute law passed by legislation and needs people to decipher who would rather not, really, go against the grain of anything or anyone (like one doctor testifying against another, get it?).

Let's work our politicians to get mutual reciprocity (and I personally think that taken it is doable). It's sorta like "how do you eat an elephant?". Answer: "one bite at a time". Take the first step and go for mutual reciprocity with adjacent states. "What - you don't trust us?" and so on. Then a national law or agreement. Then Step 2 - revert to the second amendment and other parts of the constitution and throw out Step 1 as it is, in fact, unconstitutional and replace it a ruling that permits are not even necessary.

When the heck did this permit thing start anyway? I can remember my grandfather dressing and tucking a wee, wee revolver or derringer into his vest pocket, same as his watch. Did he require a permit to do so? I don't think so. I'd sure like to find some material on the history of 'licensing' for concealed or open carry. It is totally, totally unconstitutional and that, Jack, was a fact until some point in time, perhaps when we were disarming the boys coming home from the Civil War who were half baked and would just as soon shoot you as have a pee?

Sorry to be so blunt but the route to our desired end is crystal clear to me. It is only the anti-gun nuts and the politicians looking for their money and votes that seem to get in the way.

Empirical data speaks for itself and the empirical data, as published by our governments themselves, show that concealed carry does NOT result in a bloodbath but rather lowers the violent crime rate. And one of those pieces of empirical data is that some 2.5 MILLION violent crimes are thwarted every year by honest citizens bearing arms (and who knows how many are not reported?).

Let's get mutual recognition/reciprocity one bite at a time - and then worry about getting rid of the permits altogether when it doesn't seem like such a big deal. Frankly, I prefer that we weed out the felons, whackos and space cadets somehow, regardless of what the constitutions says. Or do we let the natural order of things straighten out the gene pool?

While your way is the way the NRA has often chosen to go, I totally disagree. I believe we need a Supreme Court decision upholding the Constitution. If we get our politicians to pass a law (something that will never happen as long as the Dem's hold a majority or even significant minority), then next week the politicians can change that law. A Supreme Court decision would be much more difficult to change.

As far as weeding out "the felons, whackos and space cadets somehow," the facts don't support the need. Neither Vermont nor Alaska have a problem. Alaska did not experience an increase in violent crime when they lifted the requirement to have a "carry permit". The felons, whackos, and space cadets already are forbidden by law from having a gun. The law doesn't matter to them. The law only affects the law abiding citizens. Make crime against the law, not exercising a Constitutionally guaranteed innate right.

[williemartin]

I think the issue here is that it would logical. Our wedding licenses are recognized across state lines. The driver’s license you get in one state (privilege) is recognized across state lines. The right to keep and bear firearms (right) seems to miss this same level of recognition. Why has this not come up in conversation prior to this? How can we as law abiding citizens elevate this topic?

[Daugherty16]

The emphasis needs to (and already is) be placed on the point of purchase. the NCIS (or is it NICS?) check quickly runs through criminal databases and will DQ you if you have any of the disqualifying felonies or misdemeanors. So after that, you're clear to buy the gun. That is really the only common ground the several states have in their permitting processes.

The problem with CCW reciprocity is the wide, wide variety of permit requirements from state to state. When it comes to driving laws, all states are very very similar. Not so with CCW. Some, VT and AK, have no permit necessary at all. Pass the NCIS, you can carry. That's how it should be? I really don't think i'm opposed to CCW applicants taking the NRA handgun course, which was not required when i bought my first handgun in California, of all places. A proficiency test seems over the top (RI). Requiring that you belong to a shooting club (MA again) is ridiculous.

Some states issue non-resident permits, some honor other state permits, some don't do either. Imagine if some states issued a drivers license with no test at all; others made you pass a written test; others made you pass a driving test, and still others made you do all that plus get letters of recommendation from 3 people who know your character. Still think they'd all recognize out of state licenses? That is the basis for objection to the bill introduced last year by NRA-ILA :: Senate Vote Lays Foundation for National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Senators Thune and Vitter, which was killed because it was 2 votes short of a filibuster-proof majority. There were 58 for, and 41 against.

We should all write our Senators and Reps now, with the recent voter revolts still fresh, to remind them we vote and we want this passed.

[maybejim]

Imagine if some states issued a drivers license with no test at all; others made you pass a written test; others made you pass a driving test, and still others made you do all that plus get letters of recommendation from 3 people who know your character. Still think they'd all recognize out of state licenses?

On the other hand there is no statistical advantage to jumping through hoops to buy a gun or to carry a gun. It sounds very logical but it simply isn't supported by the facts. It is a governmental infringement on the right to self protection and the right to keep and bear arms without any value.