Will a permit (CCW) ever be recognized similar to a Driver's License?

[cirrusly]

Do you personally believe within the next 10 years it would be feasible that a CCW permit from a given state (for example Utah) would have reciprocity in every other state. This would be a similar concept to a driver's license from one state being honored in any of the other 50 states. Under this scenario, one with a Utah CCW could openly carry in any of the states.

In doing some primarily research an amendment which would have partly accomplished this was recently proposed in US Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00100

 

[skidmark]

It will not. You don't want perfidious FedGov meddling, what is enacted by the pen of one administration is rescinded by the pen - or sword - of the next.

The perfidious meddling of the federal government is not involved in the Drivers Licence Compact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact (which, BTW, does not include all 50 (57 by some counts) states). And it is not a "national recognition" compact - rather, it creates a method for states to exchange traffic infraction information in order for the collection of fines/costs from drivers who would otherwise ignore citations from other than their home state on the dual theories of "they can't pull my license if I don't liver there" and "my insurance company will never know".

Driving, which as we all know only too well is but a privilege, does have some nebulous connection to commerce between, among, and through the various states. The Commerce Clause is regularly hauled out to explain to places like NJ, NY and Ca (most frequently) why they cannot force out-of-state drivers to get a separate license valid for transit through their territory. That probably does not qualify as perfidious federal meddling.

Commerece, such as the hauling of cheap (and sometimes inexpensive) Chinese goods from a distribution enter in one state to retail outlets in another state, is considered by the population of the country to be "essential". Strangely, the keeping and bearing of arms, let alone the hiding of handguns from common observation, is not seen as being anywhee nearly as essential. Change that and you will achieve recognition of any one state's permission slip as being equivalent and as valid as that state's own permission slip. And it will not require the perfidious meddling of the federal government, although there is some possibility that once it comes about they could see various ways of controlling it via the distribution of money extorted from the residents of one state to the residents of some other state.

There are a few other details involved, but that's a fair nut-shell explanation of what it will take.

stay safe.

 

[marshaul]

National reciprocity is a waste of energy.

Constitutional carry or go home.

 

[snatale42]

Sounds great in theory, but what they can give they can take. i don't trust them enough.

 

[skidmark]

National reciprocity is a waste of energy.

Constitutional carry or go home.

Constitutional carry applies only to the individual state - unless there has been a major change in the wording of the 10th Amendment. (Not that the federal government pays much attention to that amendment in the first place.)

If each and every state does not enact constitutional carry that applies to all/a list of approved persons within the borders of that state, then there will never be nationwide constitutional carry.

Yes, I know you are saying "constitutional carry as per the 2nd Amendment" as defined as being incorporated against the states per MacDonald. You gotta get to ^^ in order to get there.

stay safe.

 

[eye95]

Please, Mr. Government, may I carry in that State over there, too?

THHHHBBBBTTTT!!!!

 

[davidmcbeth]

Constitutional carry applies only to the individual state - unless there has been a major change in the wording of the 10th Amendment. (Not that the federal government pays much attention to that amendment in the first place.)

If each and every state does not enact constitutional carry that applies to all/a list of approved persons within the borders of that state, then there will never be nationwide constitutional carry.

Yes, I know you are saying "constitutional carry as per the 2nd Amendment" as defined as being incorporated against the states per MacDonald. You gotta get to ^^ in order to get there.

stay safe.

the 2nd is incorporated per mcdonald ... so just need the 2nd to say carry is a right ; of course, I don't need a court to vote on it myself for me to come to a conclusion...

 

[Grapeshot]

Do you personally believe within the next 10 years it would be feasible that a CCW permit from a given state (for example Utah) would have reciprocity in every other state. This would be a similar concept to a driver's license from one state being honored in any of the other 50 states. Under this scenario, one with a Utah CCW could openly carry in any of the states.

In doing some primarily research an amendment which would have partly accomplished this was recently proposed in US Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00100

Not in this lifetime or the next. On this most clear thinking pro gunnnies agree.

Would be far, far better to rescind/abolish all gun laws - those things which they are designed to accomplish are already illegal in 99.99% of the instances.

We surely do not want the federal government involved in permits - what they giveth, they can take away.

 

[marshaul]

Constitutional carry applies only to the individual state - unless there has been a major change in the wording of the 10th Amendment. (Not that the federal government pays much attention to that amendment in the first place.)

If each and every state does not enact constitutional carry that applies to all/a list of approved persons within the borders of that state, then there will never be nationwide constitutional carry.

Yes, I know you are saying "constitutional carry as per the 2nd Amendment" as defined as being incorporated against the states per MacDonald. You gotta get to ^^ in order to get there.

stay safe.

I'm aware of all this, of course. My post isn't the non sequitur you seem to think it is, because national reciprocity falls into the category of P4P. Every single P4P represents the creation of an incentive (or the elimination of a disincentive) to maintain licensure. Therefore, national reciprocity represents a potential force opposing constitutional carry within each of the states.

I really don't give a damn who can carry where with their precious permission slips. Every action permission-slip-holders take in pursuit of P4P is shamefully, reprehensibly self-serving.

IMNSHO.

 

[MackTheKnife]

National reciprocity is a waste of energy.

Constitutional carry or go home.

I wish constitutional carry was recognized as the law of the land as it should be. No license, no permit, no restrictions on where you can carry. It's too bad that courts at every level seem to believe that "reasonable restrictions" are OK.

Razor Max Tapatalk.

 

[MackTheKnife]

I'm aware of all this, of course. My post isn't the non sequitur you seem to think it is, because national reciprocity falls into the category of P4P. Every single P4P represents the creation of an incentive (or the elimination of a disincentive) to eliminate licensure. Therefore, national reciprocity represents a potential force opposing constitutional carry.

I really don't give a damn who can carry where with their precious permission slips. Every action permission-slip-holders take in pursuit of P4P is shamefully, reprehensibly self-serving.

IMNSHO.

P4P?

Razor Max Tapatalk.

 

[marshaul]

P4P.

Perks for Permittees

Note the substitution of "maintain" for "eliminate" in my post, made after I noticed the error when you quoted me.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to mention that I'd have little problem with the feds incorporating the right to "bear" against the states. My opposition to Federal reciprocity is purely because I vehemently oppose licensure and all the corresponding perquisites. As it happens, I do not believe in any "states' right" to infringe the RKBA.

 

[cirrusly]

Not in this lifetime or the next. On this most clear thinking pro gunnnies agree.

Would be far, far better to rescind/abolish all gun laws - those things which they are designed to accomplish are already illegal in 99.99% of the instances.

We surely do not want the federal government involved in permits - what they giveth, they can take away.

I agree with you here, Grapeshot. GFSZ is a case and point. It makes legal carrying circumstances more convoluted, given states already have school gun regulations. And opens the door for potential false arrests by local LEOs unfamiliar with the exception of CHP / CCW holders. In conversation with some local law enforcement, they had no knowledge that a CCW holder could carry within the 1000' SZ area. Regardless, most LEOs will enforce the laws for the municipality/state for which they serve, thus a local LEO enforcing a specific federal statue seems unlikely. And what are the odds if there was a violator of GFSZ a federal agent would happen to be on duty in the school zone? In summation I agree, federal gun laws = bad new for law abiding pro 2A citizens such as ourselves.

However, not all law has to be negative. As mentioned, the Commerce Clause prohibiting states from getting separate licenses for transit...

The Commerce Clause is regularly hauled out to explain to places like NJ, NY and Ca (most frequently) why they cannot force out-of-state drivers to get a separate license valid for transit through their territory. That probably does not qualify as perfidious federal meddling.

I would contend another positive piece of legislation was the Firearm Owner's Protection Act. Well I think we'd all agree FOPA doesn't always keep law abiding citizens from "beating the ride," at the end of the day the affirmative defense clear's their name.

I don't have a hard set opinion on the idea of a 100% reciprocity CCW, but it's a fun topic to throw around. I do maintain that it remains feasible. Yes, I don't think it's completely improbable given it was voted on once in Senate. Do I think it will happen in the next 2 years? Absolutely not. In the next 10? Maybe.

 

[MackTheKnife]

It will not. You don't want perfidious FedGov meddling, what is enacted by the pen of one administration is rescinded by the pen - or sword - of the next.

Most excellent, and astute, point.

Razor Max Tapatalk.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Issued to 16 year old youths, using a bad photo, and forcing you to take the stupidest test to get one?
Naw, I don't think so.

 

[cirrusly]

Issued to 16 year old youths, using a bad photo, and forcing you to take the stupidest test to get one?
Naw, I don't think so.

I don't know...

My Utah CCW photo is pretty awesome. And some I those CCW tests are pretty basic. Heck-most don't have an actual test anyway, just a course.

Opponents of national reciprocity have pointed out that this legislation would effectively require states with more restrictive standards of permit issuance (e.g., training courses, safety exams, "good cause" requirements, et al.) to honor permits from states with more liberal issuance policies..

Opponents say the tests and pre-reqs vary so much from state to state and it's not feasible. Do away with all the basic ******** tests, and carry on!

On a different note- happy Labor Day everyone.