Question of the Day: “Enhanced Carry Permit” for National Reciprocity?

PP-Maxwell-2

Over on TTAG’s Facebook page, commentator Skeptical Libertarian writes “I am sure my suggestion will draw ire from many of my fellow 2A supporters, but here goes. Since there are differing carry laws among the many states (which our government model should overall support), and since some individuals (LEOs and retired LEOs) already enjoy what are essentially ‘National’ carry licenses, as well as ‘enhanced’ carry licenses (allowing them to carry in otherwise restricted gun free zones {which of course I think are asinine and actually create more danger in many ways}), how about the creation of national recognition for states who will sponsor an ‘Enhanced Carry License’. Not simply CCW (or CHL or whatever your state calls it), but . . .

A carry license free from legal restriction (except by private business) and which applies in all states.

This license would require documentation of additional training and expertise, and a higher level of background scrutiny; perhaps as a sweetener it could also serve as automatic NFA approval.

I know many, many of you will hate this idea; it is intended as a pragmatic solution, not as capitulation, and not as acceptance that ‘Not infringed’ doesn’t mean ‘not infringed’.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    It would also have to include the ability to have firearms shipped directly to the licensee. That I can get behind.

  2. avatar Stephen Rivera says:

    Good luck getting Cali, NY and Mass to go along with that….

    1. avatar Chrispy says:

      …aaaaaaaaand Connecticut, DC, Hawaii, New Jersey, Illinois… I’m sure we’ve left some out

      1. avatar meadowsr says:

        Maryland

        1. avatar Tony says:

          I would support the idea precisely in order to be able to carry in Maryland. I have a carry permit valid in VA and many other states but not MD.

    2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      I think the idea is that by federal law those states could not bar you from carrying there with your state ‘enhanced’ permit.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        It doesn’t stop them from shooting you in the name of officer safety.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          It wouldn’t stop you from shooting back, though.

    3. avatar Toby in KS says:

      I think you might find it easy to get them to go along with it.

      All you need to do is make it a gun ownership license, or a class “C” firearms license. Those owners that wish to bump up to conceal carry can get a class “B” license after jumping through the appropriate hoops. FFL would be a class “A.” Additional riders can be provided. All this can be done at the local DMV, since they already have most of the infrastructure in place.

      This, to me, is a bad, bad dream.

      In my opinion, the whole idea is a slippery slope toward nationwide gun registry. I appreciate the problem solving attitude for national reciprocity, but I believe the addition of such laws only weakens our Second Amendment, opening vulnerabilities that can be exploited by evil people at a later date.

  3. avatar Paul G says:

    Every time we advocate for some new manner of privileged infringement on the RKBA we act to support the notion that our rights are not rights at all.

    1. avatar AnonInWA says:

      Agree. Any compromise ends up hurting us in the end.
      This will allow back door gun control as it will be at the “lowest common denominator” standard.
      There is no “permit” other than the Constitution.
      Sorry to say, but stupid proposition.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        I dunno about that.

        If it’s explicitly acknowledged that each state can have its own licensing standards — including the constitutional ideal of no licensing at all — as a matter separate from the federal standard, then this could be a big leap forward.

        It would greatly improve what is now a nightmarish patchwork of state standards, and it seems to fit the federal government’s constitutional mandate for regulating (not restricting) interstate commerce. And when blood *doesn’t* flow in the streets nationwide (again…still…), then we’d have yet more truth and reality to counter the stupid guns-cause-violence meme.

        You’re right, there are risks: some states (the usual suspects) might use the federal standard as an excuse to regress to no-issue at the state level, forcing everyone to go through the more burdensome federal process, and the feds could bugger it up like everything else they touch.

        Overall, though, I think something like this would be a step forward. “Yes, if…” is a whole lot better than the “not if we can help it” attitude that’s been the federal default for so long.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          “…and the feds could would bugger it up like everything else they touch.”

          Fixed it for you.

    2. avatar Phydeaux says:

      Agreed, bad idea. And not a particularly “libertarian” idea at that!

    3. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      This is not be infringement, though. We already do not have those rights at all, If they were made a privilege that would be more conditions a person could carry a gun under than we currently have. But a step forward that leaves us on a bad footing could set us up for more restrictions later. It’s hard to see how it washes out in the end.

      We already have or rights turned into privileges with any carry permit system. My understanding I’d that shortly before that, there was no carry at all in many places. If gun owners and rights advocates hadn’t accepted a carry permit system wed still be worse off.

      One thing is certain, though. The antis did not get us into this state by refusing to take any step that didn’t immediately fulfill their end goals, and we won’t get what we want by refusing to either.

      Getting out of the woods requires taking steps that put you still in the woods.

      The question is not if the proposed scheme is ideal or a cessation of all infringements, it clearly isn’t, but if it’s is less infringement than we currently have, which it seems to be.

      But it’s not like this is being debated in congress just yet.

    4. avatar Tommycat says:

      That’s all well and good if you never leave your home state, or if you never travel through occupied territory, but I’d take enhanced carry as a TRUE compromise to being able to legally carry in all 50 states, should this be allowed. I would rather there not be any restrictions on firearms at all. However until such time as all firearms laws are rejected as infringements on rights, I would love to be legally allowed to carry in all 50 states.

      1. avatar Paul G says:

        Capitulation of this type is a fool’s compromise. It is like paying a blackmailer, you are only delaying the inevitable. Learn from the past.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          In case you haven’t noticed the demographic trends, you’re already delaying the inevitable. But you can do that with more effective means that’ll let you hold out longer, or you can do a bayonet charge on the MG nest.

        2. avatar Paul G says:

          The point sailed high over your head apparently. You just verrified my point…..and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Keep on capitulating, it has worked soooo well.

  4. avatar Leadbelly says:

    My CCW is already good in most states, and the ones where it’s not good would not likely get with the program. I’d support this, though, if anyone in a position to get it done were to propose legislation to make it so.

  5. avatar MoveableDo says:

    The problem with conservatives (and I am one), is we want perfection before progress. The reason progressives have been so successful in tearing our country apart–slowly–is that they accept ANY “progress” “forward” as acceptable to them. Of course this would be a great idea!!

    1. avatar AnonInWA says:

      The issue is if this is a “forward” move or actually backwards.
      It will impose additional requirements for people that otherwise have none today.
      Fighting for principles requires perfection, otherwise there are no principles. The moment you compromise on principles you lost. The left, doesn’t care about principles.
      Respect for the Constitution is one of principle.

      1. avatar Gatha58 says:

        I don’t think this idea would impose additional restrictions on those that already have a concealed permit at all. Believe the idea is to offer something over and above what already exists with additional benefits and privileges that would go along with the enhanced permit. I am all for this idea. I believe that each state would need to sign on but I believe this would definitely be a step forward if set up properly.

        1. avatar AnonInWA says:

          This is the “camel nose under the tent”. Once people ask for gov intervention to help them, the gov never gets out. And it ends with bad results. Please think about a “helpful” fed legislation. While you may find some is really rare. Every law created is used to further restrict freedom, under the guise of helping.
          The courts should have long settled this on constitutional grounds as somebody said here (Full-Faith and Credit).

      2. avatar CBI says:

        AnonInWA, I’d like you to reconsider for a second the concept of compromise as it relates to the Consitution. The very existence of the Constitution was a matter of compromise between two different principles. The “Great Compromise” of the House (with proportional representation) and Senate (with equal representation per state) is what allowed the Constitution to be pursued, while the “five-eights compromise” is what allowed it to come into effect, and the compromise which produced the Bill of Rights is what allowed it to be fully adopted.

        Like it or not, some people are afraid of the freedoms recognized by the Consitution. Over time, many freedoms have been abrogated. If you can think of a practical way to instantaneously regain the freedoms, I’m all ears. In the meantime, regaining some of the freedom — and showing some of the fearful ones thereby that their fears were baseless — is an improvement.

    2. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      The 2nd was perfect as written. Then the politicians got involved. Progress is undoing all the machinations that moved us away from “shall not be infringed”. This idea is not progress.

    3. avatar MarkPA says:

      I absolutely agree with you; perfection is the enemy of the good enough.
      IF we were facing a negotiable opponent then I would be on-board with such an idea as a Federal or multi-lateral State minimum-level-of-training and you get interstate carry privileges. Alas, we are NOT facing a negotiable opponent.
      The Anti’s will never compromise; so, there is no point thinking about any negotiation with THEM. We need to be thinking about the voters and Congress-critters who are relatively open-minded. We need to make them see things our way politically. I don’t really see that this constituency/legislators are really “into” the details. Do they really care whether 4 – 8 – 12 – 24 hours is “enough”?
      Very likely, the easiest thing for them to do is pass a clean National Reciprocity bill. One State has a training requirement; one requires a CWP but no training; yet another is Constitutional Carry. The easy thing to do is to withhold judgement and pass a bill that leaves it to each State to establish its own standards which other States must acknowledge. This is clearly Constitutional under Full-Faith and Credit.
      The strongest position for us to take is (IMO) that the Won’t-Issue States brought National Reciprocity upon themselves. They could have had inter-state carry on their own terms by issuing Non-Resident permits with prescribed training requirements. Had they done so they would have taken 80% of the pressure off them to honor all other States’ CWPs. They would have “won” by maintaining State control. They forewent this approach because they wanted an absolute ban. Well, now they have to live with the consequences of National Reciprocity.

    4. avatar int19h says:

      It’s not a conservative thing, it’s an idealist thing. There are plenty of idealists on the liberal side, too, who want “perfect” laws and aren’t willing to accept compromise (e.g. I know a bunch of hipster type guys in WA who voted against marijuana legalization, because the law had too many restrictions on legal use and a zero tolerance DUI policy). You’re an idealist on the conservative side, as are most of the TTAG audience. But there are many pragmatists on either side, too. Though of late I would say that conservative idealists are more prominent and command a larger chunk of the party (and because of that, GOP has a strategic disadvantage).

  6. avatar IdahoPete says:

    I can get behind the idea of national recognition of any carry permit ISSUED BY A STATE but I would NOT support any Federally-issued license. Federal involvement in this kind of license issue would be used to register gun owners, and would be warped by the Federal government to deny the license for any number of bogus reasons. I do NOT want the Feds involved in carry permits, other than through Article. IV, Section 1 of the Constitution: “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.”

  7. avatar James69 says:

    Unless the USG/Feds are gonna get big cash from every 2a’er it will never happen. To them it’s all about sheep and how much than can fleece from you without you dying. Your “rights” pale in comparason to the amount of revnue you can produce for THEM.

  8. avatar CM says:

    On the one hand, I tend to see it as a 2A “Why does anyone need a permit to exercise a right?” kind of thing. On the other hand, I don’t have a problem with the basic safety and handling classes that usually go with said permits and gods know we desperately need the protection of reciprocity especially in states like NJ. The gripping hand is the more stringent the requirements and background, the more denials and cross referencing the database against other “lists”. I would rather Constitutional carry with the burden of proof of ineligible carriers on the State than the burden of eligibility on the Citizen.

    1. avatar James69 says:

      Innocent until proven guilty? How about that for a basis of issue, not a series of paid required classes taught by some blackwater, ex-doughnut munching, 511 dressed thigh holster wearing wannabe?

  9. avatar Gtdad says:

    I think I must agree. Any federal legislation would come with strings and revocation with out warning much less due cause. States should be allowed to make compact at will and the consumer can decide to frequent those states that choose to infringe.

  10. avatar pyratemime says:

    I can see this as a camel’s nose under the tent kind of thing. Thirty years ago there were hardly any states doing shall issue permits and now there are only a few hold outs. In the past 5 years we have seen a few of those shall issue states move to constitutional carry states in what I hope will become a new wave in advancing the recognition of our rights.

    I can see this as a first step in a similar trend. should it be necessary, no. Could it work and have a long run positive effect, yes. Would such a law have to be carefully written, absolutely.

  11. avatar SteveInCO says:

    Since there are differing carry laws among the many states (which our government model should overall support),

    Wrong. The only appropriate law we should “support” is complete and utter 2A freedom.

    States should be allowed to do some things differently, but no state has the ‘right” to infringe on your fundamental rights arbitrarily because “it’s just they way they do things there.”

    The federal government has every business stepping in and slapping a state government down, if it is doing so because that state government is violating rights.

  12. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…This license would require ”

    Neat idea, at least at the conceptual level.

    What will happen in short order will be some nanny-state group will make the case that 20 hours isn’t enough training. And in some short amount of time later they will make the case that 80 hours isn’t enough. THen 100. Then 200 hours.

    It IS a neat idea, it really is. But it will only lay the groundwork for a formal structure to deny us even more rights because there is a requirement in the idea and that requirement can be changed.

  13. You would probably be talking about around $600 or more in total fees and costs so I would have to say no, such a suggestion is ‘obviously racist’.

  14. avatar James69 says:

    That’s the problem it’s ALL OF US or NONE OF US. More laws??? Really? We don’t need ANYMORE laws there are plenty to cover EVERY aspect of our lives to the smallest detail. We’re up to our necks in laws now that don’t work except to make revenue for the state and feds.

    1. avatar AnonInWA says:

      +1000

  15. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
    George Orwell “Animal Farm” 1945

    1. avatar James69 says:

      If in bookland – I like Robert A. Heinlein’s version where ONLY a term of military service granted “rights” Like to vote and have children and I’m assuming here – to own and carry firearms. 😉

      1. avatar James69 says:

        oh forgot the most important part no federal service Congress Pres. etc….. Imagine a world where the reps were smart enough to field strip a rifle,shoot said rifle,16 count manual,fold a blanket, learn about REAL teamwork/brotherhood and at least be physically fit to pass basic training.

        1. avatar ropingdown says:

          Am I to assume that this required military service would assure that every politician and gun carrier is as staunch a defender of fundamental rights as Generals McChrystal and MacRaven? /sarc

          Heinlein. Amusing, but he couldn’t even stand to drive a car.

      2. avatar Slick says:

        You haven’t read Starship Troopers. I’m guessing you watched the movie.

        The right to vote is held by those who complete federal service. Those who make federal service a career cannot vote until they are discharged. The service cannot turn someone away unless they are mentally incompetent to understand the decision they are about to make. Only requirement is to be 18 years old. Heinlein intended for 95% of federal service (and stated as much in Expanded Universe) to be non-military though the book only really focuses on the military aspect.

        Every other right is held by both citizens and veterans. Except for teaching the “History and Moral Philosophy Class”, if i remember correctly, which must be taught by a veteran.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          You also could not be a policeman unless you were a veteran. Makes sense, because if you can’t participate in making the law, you shouldn’t be able to enforce it.

          One other key thing… you volunteer for service and you do NOT get to choose what service you can perform. You can quit at any time… but you must complete your two year term to become a citizen, and you don’t become a citizen until you are out. (You are subject to recall or extension after your two years are up, if an emergency (like a war) comes up.) And as you pointed out, going “career” is a different thing. They don’t get a vote until they retire.

          There’s one passage in the book that stood out for me (many did, but this one comes to mind right now). The main character is thinking, “well we can’t allow people actually IN the mobile infantry to vote, or they’d vote not to drop [go into combat].” Apparently, once you have a vote, you have a lot of power in that society and could even argue you weren’t subject to military discipline.

      3. avatar Grindstone says:

        I suppose that would setting the “natural vs god-given” rights argument. Neither! They’re government-given!

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Starship troopers didn’t make any statement one way or the other about private carry of firearms, so I don’t know if it would have beenr restricted to citizens or not. But it was evident that anyone, citizen or not, had freedom of speech. The things a non-citizen could not do were: vote or hold public office or even be a cop.

        2. avatar CarlosT says:

          Here’s what Starship Troopers had to say on the topic:

          “The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature.”

          Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. “Sir? How about ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’?”

          “Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

          “The third ‘right’?—the ‘pursuit of happiness’? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can ‘pursue happiness’ as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it.”

  16. avatar MojoRonin says:

    I’d only very behind it if it included all access to everywhere, including schools, federal buildings, and over rides no guns allowed postings.

    1. avatar James69 says:

      All or nothing folks, it’s called gambling…

  17. avatar LarryinTX says:

    “Commentator”? I think you were looking for “commenter”.

  18. avatar meadowsr says:

    At a federal level, I don’t like this. I *might* be OK with a Federal law that basically requires that all states must treat existing CHP/CHL/CCW/whatever-your-state-calls-them exactly like drivers licenses. Drivers licenses from any state are accepted by any other state, no questions asked, no additional fees, “it just works”.

  19. avatar Shawn F. says:

    While I have to agree with a lot of the comments so far, I still cringe each and every time they say ‘EXCEPT (insert here)’; be that schools, government building, private businesses, etc. We have all seen the backlash of trying to let ‘private business’ decide who they will serve (gay community, etc), and yet we want to carve out an exception for them against us?

    1. avatar AnonInWA says:

      Yeah, it is called the right to freely associate with whoever you want. It is called also, private property.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        Private property, in terms of real estate, is a secondary right, indeed a contrived one: there is no natural right to have a piece of the planet belong to you.

  20. avatar Shire-man says:

    If the scores of background checks I’ve had to go through and the thousands of hours I have under my belt training with the scores and certificates to show for it aren’t enough to get the anti’s to trust me I highly doubt one more background check and one more shitty pistols 101 course will convince them otherwise.

    1. avatar Chris. says:

      Exactly Right!

      I was military; Background checked for secret clearance when I joined; Background checked for TS clearance.
      Background checked when I got out and went to work for a local government in the IT department; Background checked on all 4 of my handguns; and 1 of my rifles (others were gifts). Background checked for my Permit to carry.

      How many more background checks do I have to go through?

  21. avatar Ralph says:

    I appreciate Skeptical Libertarian’s attempt to make sense out of craziness — no disrespect intended, SL — but the whole notion of a Super-Dooper Special Enhanced Federal CCW is offensive to the Constitution. And to me.

    Kansas just adopted Constitutional Carry (signed by Gov. Brownback). The legislature of two other states approved ConCarry this year, but the laws were vetoed by their stinking Democrat governors.

    ConCarry is the perfect solution, but not the only solution. Since I won’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, I would accept a Federal law mandating Universal Permit Recognition instead. And I believe that such a law would be constitutional as a regulation affecting commerce.

    1. avatar dwb says:

      Not interstate commerce. The 2A is incorporated to states under the 14th amendment, which also gives Congress enforcement power.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        No, that’s not correct. 2A is part of the Bill of Rights which RESTRICTS Federal power. It grants NO power to Congress. This is a critical distinction. 14A extends those restrictions to the States but grants them no power.

        The Commerce Clause is part of the Constitution that GRANTS power to Congress and restricts the states and the people through the operation of the Supremacy Clause.

        1. avatar Paul G says:

          The BoR did not need incorporating…the supremacy clause makes that quite clear. Congress is only mentioned in the first amendment, specifically so that states could keep their state religions.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      Agree, naturally. And, I’m amazed at how many people are eager to extend to the Federal Government a power not granted to it by the Constitution, thereby a power reserved to the states or to the people. Since we apparently must continue to suffer the monster which has grown from the Commerce Clause cases, that would be the least harmful path to carry permit recognition, much like that making interstate driving practicable without the need to amend the Constitution.

      The Commerce Clause is, BTW, the justification for the Federal Controlled Substances Act…and (here I agree with Justice Thomas) an unconstitutional grab of a power (a part of the Police Power) not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The police power embraces many functions of government, not specifically referring to the modern meaning of “police.” So, the federal government might rightly have a federal police function under the Necessary and Proper clause, without having the right to decide which substances a citizen of the various states might lawfully grow, synthesize, or ingest.

      At length, I vote for the Ralph Proposal, and encourage citizens to vote out those who betray our natural rights and former freedoms.

  22. avatar MAC][ says:

    I would likely support that idea. A framework in which states may choose to participate and doesn’t remove state issued or state constitutional carry. I think I t would need to have federal recognition for the right to carry in non-sensitive federal areas (post offices, social security offices, etc). Interesting idea RF.

  23. avatar dwb says:

    As some have commented, we should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

    I think this would be a good idea to bring the final few states and counties into line on shall issue (could be forever for the courts to act), and would give the Supreme Court some cover to act on some shall-issue cases it has so far refused to grant. The devil is in the details. It should not prevent (for example) constitutional carry in one’s home state. 8 hours of training, plus a fingerprint-based background check should also allow you to directly purchase firearms with no FFL involved, but that’s a separate battle. Under the right framework, this would get 60 votes in the Senate. The final few states that are no issue (really, restrictive may issue) will need to be forced by the Feds or Courts.

  24. avatar Ben says:

    How about this: the second amendment is my enhanced carry permit and my automatic nfa approval.

    1. avatar Raven says:

      ^ This. I am shocked by how many just can’t wrap their minds around the intent of the BoR (all inclusively, and not specific to the 2nd).

      With respect to Skeptical Libertarian; nope, nope, nopety, nope. No compromise, especially since it will place a large obstacle in our path to freedom. Pray tell; how many federal laws are/have been repealed? Further still, how much time, expense, and strife did it take to have that ultimately small percentage repealed (or superseded, for that matter)? And you wish to put another in the way? Yeah, nope.

      Not intended as a reply to your post, but concerning my first point: I have to admit to being disappointed daily in many of those on the side of “freedom” that are constantly pushing to inflict their will on others. Moreover, they are fully onboard with abrogating [s]subjects[/s] others rights to achieve their narrow minded view of freedom (for them alone). Funny, that strikes me as the same exact problems they’re complaining of Bloomie & his ilk committing against them. Freedom for me, but not for thee, eh?

      A true libertarian here, and I don’t subscribe to hypocrisy or casteism, no matter how kindly worded…

    2. avatar int19h says:

      How about you try it and report back to TTAG with the results (that is, in a few years, once you’re out of federal prison).

  25. avatar james says:

    I have a hard time understanding why any permit is necessary for anyone to carry any armament of their choosing.

    Every citizen of the United States has, by the very nature of their existence, the right to carry a weapon. It should be presumed that any citizen could choose to exercise that right at any given time, with or without notice, with or without seeking permission.

    If anything at all, those who, through “due process” of the “justice” system, are deemed to be incapable of carrying a weapon without posing a significant risk to themselves or to others, should be “blacklisted” until such time as they amend their ways. Perhaps a “scarlet letter” of some sort, in a computer system or on their given identification card, or both, or something better.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      ‘Every citizen of the United States has, by the very nature of their existence, the right to carry a weapon.’

      Every human has by the very nature of their existence the right to carry a weapon. Country of citizenship has nothing to do with rights.

      That said we live in the freest country on earth since our government infringes on that right less than any other country. I wouldn’t eschew any changes in law that reduce the infringement on those rights, even if the new restrictions, like the old ones, are unconstitutional by their nature. Twenty-five years ago the ‘right to carry’ movement got started and now only a few states don’t allow any citizen (or legal alien resident for that matter) to acquire a weapons carry permit. Now we are moving on to the constitutional carry movement. As non gun owners have seen that there is no blood running in the streets they have become more open to the idea of just adhering to the 2nd Amendment. Change usually requires either time or violence and we have plenty of time.

  26. avatar Rick says:

    Mr. Farago’s assertion with regards to LEOs specifically, “…allowing them to carry in otherwise restricted gun free zones…” is incorrect. Pursuant to title 18 USC 926 B&C states in part:

    “(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
    (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
    (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.”

  27. avatar JeffM in Atlanta says:

    While I am opposed to the idea of a National Carry Permit because it gets the Federal Govt deeper into our business, one step closer to national gun registration. One thing I could get behind is a National License for NFA items instead of going thru the form 4 process.

  28. avatar Pascal says:

    I do not like the idea because whenever there is a Democrat majority at the Federal level they will continue to move the goal posts. It will become too bureaucratic and expensive. Second problem, states like NY, CA, CT and MA will refuse to allow the certification or honor it or make it impossible to obtain by doing something stupid like all courses must be taken in Boston and Oh, there is only one class per year and it is $2000 for the class.

    If there could be a way then retired LEO are also required by law to go through all the same documentation, expense and training before they can carry. If they are retired, they are no longer LEO and should be subjected to the same exact laws.

    1. avatar Nate O says:

      Agreed. I understand the intent of allowing LE officers firearms not easily acquired by civilians while ON DUTY but when off duty or retired they should be required to comply with the rules like the rest of us. Everyone likes special perks of a job, including me but that is contrary to what this country stands for and what is really right. Whenever I talk to a LEO carrying off duty I always have a great amount of respect when I hear him talk about his carry permit first and foremost instead of saying how he burned his permit because he’s covered under LEOSA. I was talking with an LE officer who still has his NY permit and renewed his non-resident permit for another state as a point of principle. As for cost and specific locations, yeah Chicago tried to do that which was a huge element of their defacto handgun ban, they said you have to qualify at a range in Chicago but they didn’t have any ranges in Chicago and barely had any in Cook County! NYC’s carry permit fee is like a grand total of $4000+! I’d bet money that states would charge us all and force the classes to be in the state’s capital city only and then violate our 1st, 4th, and 14th amendment rights before considering issuing the permit!

    2. avatar Gatha58 says:

      Classes and the license would have to be affordable and practical for the average person. Local ranges could be certified and offer the classes there. That way, nobody has to travel a long distance to get to the classes and we support the ranges and gun shops and less government control. The ranges could charge a nominal fee for the classes like they do now in Nevada. The license fee would also have to be affordable, definitely under $100 and be good for at least 3 years. Five years would be better. I don’t think the background check needs to be anything other than what is being done already. Seems like the current background checks are sufficient. I do like the idea of requiring classes on safety, proficiency and legal implications of shooting someone. I have seen way too many idiots with guns that have NO idea of firearm safety or the basics of firearm handling.

  29. avatar Nate O says:

    I would certainly put in the time and effort to get a permit like this even though I really shouldn’t have to compromise essentially. That said we don’t need to set precedence for the federal government to arm wrestle states into doing something, even if I would love for the feds to force NY State (where I live unfortunately) to honor the spirit of the 2nd amendment and the handful of cases that support the individual right to carry concealed or open in public.

  30. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Not going to happen in the next two years.

    I have a somewhat similar idea. Replace 2/3 of our police officers with reserve police officers. Reserve officers would get a couple of weeks initial training and then spend a Saturday afternoon every month training (both physically and legally) and in exchange they get a couple hundred bucks a month plus an hourly rate for whenever they’re called for duty. They also get free enhanced carry permits that allows them to carry anywhere any other LEO can.

    The need for so many police wouldn’t be necessary if it weren’t for the failed ‘war on drugs’ and the overzealous enforcement of traffic laws fueled by the need to pay for so many officers’ salaries.

  31. avatar Gatha58 says:

    I think this is a GREAT idea. All of you 2A guys that are nitpicking this kind of idea are not helping us to move forward. If implemented properly an enhanced national CC permit would encourage training classes and give additional benefits to those that obtained this permit. I have been advocating a similar proposal on the state level but most legislators are afraid to support anything that is as controversial as “gun laws”. Whoever said that the left is winning by picking away at our rights one by one while we fall behind because some of us refuse to budge on anything at all is right on target. Just because you support a proposal like this does not mean you are against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the Second Amendment. It is just a way for us to move forward, support safety training and obtain another license that could offer substantial benefits to gun owners.

    1. avatar AnonInWA says:

      ZZZZZ. Wrong. You introduce the concept of requiring training for exercising a right and that is giving up on principle. What if we would require some sort of test for being able to vote?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        +1

        To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      Why should we want to encourage a class of training freaks pursuing special “benefits”? This term, “benefits,” is simply meant to obscure the reality, that you intend those who pursue ever more training (paying concomitant costs and fees) might, under your proposal, recover another bit of the rights which have wrongfully been infringed by prior legislation.

      We have, in the states, moderately good (if still overly broad and ill-defined) restraints on the lawful possession of a gun. These, joined to a “shall issue” permit regimen, suffice as a “worst tolerable” set of legal restraints. As with a driver’s license, so too the CCW permits should be recognized in every state. If NY, CA, CT, and NJ still want their own residents to go gun-less, let them. I’ve often wished they would do the same with their car drivers.

  32. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Good luck in Illinois. Court ordered handguns in Chicago-kicking and screaming to be the 50th state with CC…and in Chicago they blame nearby(Indiana,Missouri,Wisconsin and Michigan) states for most gun crime. I dunno’ about national laws- the feds FU everything they touch…but I sure wish Illinois had Indiana laws.

  33. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    Throw in exception from the $200 tax and any state or local mandated waiting periods and maybe.

    My gut instinct says agree to this and keep pushing after ward, that getting national reciprocity and some exemptions even if it requires a different permit will be gained ground no matter how you slice it.

    But, I think it would have to allow private training instead of a federally run program that provides training so we can say “see? Normal folks are coming to the table already meeting these high standards” instead of a federal monopoly on every part of the process.

    In short, adding more privileges may very well be a step towards having the rights recognized as they should be. I could be wrong though.

  34. avatar Gman says:

    All of this leads me to rethink our position. Shall not be infringed, does that really mean that? Are there such things as “reasonable” restrictions? In my opinion, no. However, is there a single rational clear cut irrefutable argument which would essentially nullify all infringing laws? My first thought is that the government must prove (maybe not so much to a liberal judge or court) that there is a compelling government interest in the legislation and that it be narrowly targeted as to engage the least burden upon the right. So exactly what is the compelling government interest in any gun laws? None of these laws which adversely affect otherwise normally lawful citizens ability to exercise their natural, civil, and shall not be infringed God damn it right have any compelling government interest. We all know this to be true; more guns = less crime. Why is that not the mantra for opposing any gun control measures? Mr. Government, please PROVE what compelling government interest is being served. It can’t be proven. The stats are on our side. Any thoughts?

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      A good litmus test as to the reasonableness of infringements on 2nd Amendment rights is to compare how similar infringements would be seen if they were enacted concerning other rights, say voting. Need an ID to vote? No? Then no ID to carry a weapon. The only difference is that half the country is hoplophobic.

  35. avatar AnonInWA says:

    The reason that we don’t make any progress is due to the fact that POTG are divided. Some think that requiring some “common sense” qualifications are ok, some think that nobody needs these “scary” rifles, there needs to be some gov check to prevent “undesirables” from acquiring guns, and so on.
    If we will be united in our believe that there should be no infringement, we would make more progress. This is how left wins, by being united behind a goal, without questioning.
    But I guess we are too indoctrinated to even fathom the idea of no infringement.
    I guess somehow, some of us feel guilty that they even think about such “extremist” views.
    They want to be seen as reasonable, accepted by their suburban neighbor.
    “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice”

    1. avatar Gman says:

      WA – I think there are vacillating folk on both sides, but the left has a much more concerted messaging program both in politics and gun control. We, the POTG, don’t have a single voice and single message. The NRA-ILA is nice, but even their message is tainted by the “evil gun lobby” messaging from the left. They also have the MSM on their side. We are all just FoxTurds. And of course, it doesn’t help that our majority party, the Republican’ts don’t have a common message either. If all out war is necessary, then we need an army. A fresh start with fresh minds and a fresh message.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        @Gman, the left doesn’t vacillate. They want our guns gone and us dead. In that order.

        1. avatar Chrispy says:

          It would probably be easier for them to do it the other way around… You know, if they had guns.

  36. avatar James St. John says:

    We don’t need the federal government to pass any such law, they already have with LEOs. All that needs to happen is for a state or local government to “deputize” citizens.

    1. avatar Nate O says:

      Good point. US Marshals and US Attorney’s swear in municipal/state police as Special Deputy US Marshals all the time, heck they even swear in members of a sheriff’s posse. The statute for a US Marshal’s posse is very open, it pretty much says anyone the Marshal deems important to the task at hand but no on duty military of course.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      @James St. John, what you’re suggesting has already been tried and failed. Believe it or not, there are LEOSA mills where real Chief LEOs will deputize damn near everybody and certify them for LEOSA. The Chiefs are forced to back off or be fired, and all their LEOSA certifications have been revoked.

  37. avatar Spaceman Brown says:

    We can already carry whenever, wherever we want, without a permission slip from the government. Accepting any level of infringement would be a tragic mistake.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Speciman Brown – Sure you can, IF you can afford the army of lawyers to argue your cases. I agree, any law which is prima facie unconstitutional is null and void. But good luck getting liberal judges to agree that Shall not be infringed actually means, shall not be infringed.

    2. avatar Parker says:

      Just like freedom of speech means you can say anything to anyone at any time. Good luck with that.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        Parker – You can say anything to anyone at anytime anywhere. There is no law preventing you from doing it. That’s the logic fallacy even used incorrectly by the SCOTUS. “You can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theatre.” Well, actually you can. Nothing prevents you from doing it. The difference between the way we treat the “reasonable limits” of the 1st and the 2nd is that the gun control laws PREVENT lawful acts. You can’t have that gun or that magazine. They don’t punish the act, they PREVENT otherwise lawful people from exercising their rights. That’s the BIG difference.

        1. avatar ropingdown says:

          While it is true that our Constitutional law forbids almost all prior restraint (there are exceptions involving national security and war) in the matter of speech, all items failing under interstate commerce in goods permit restraint of production, delivery, sale, or possession. Whether this reality is justified or not I’ll leave to others, but I can say without a qualm that the power to forbid production and sale of items not inherently and extremely dangerous conflicts with the republican elements of the Constitution.

          Bit by bit a voting majority in the U.S. has allowed practices through which the federal institutions usurp powers reserved to the states, often achieving this through devious means. I would cite the unfunded mandates as such a means. The federal power to tax has been converted to a power to command, even in areas in which the states are clearly to be supreme. Education is a good example. If states do not implement certain (many) practices, then they will be denied certain block grants….returns to the states of the states’ own money..

          Who has the time to devote to all the abuses? No one. Billionaires can, obviously, hire others to pursue these things full time, generating income tax deductions along the way. Does that seem democratic?

  38. avatar Parker says:

    For those who are looking for a middle ground in the gun control debate, this is a viable proposal. Gun Control Advocates get enhanced background checks and a requirement for training and what amounts to a registry of non-LEOs licensed federally to carry a gun in all 50 states. Potentially, in the spirit of give-and-take this could be traded for universal background checks for all non-familial transfers – or even NFA permit or NFA tax-stamp relief.

    On both sides of this debate, this proposal would obviously drive some folks apopletic, which just serves to remind us that there is little middle ground in this discussion. One side sees nothing at all wrong with a dude carrying an AK-47 and 120 rounds at a playground. The other side can’t imagine why any sane person would think the world is safer with a father carrying a concealed Glock 26 at the same playground. So both sides of this debate have clearly lost their minds and common sense, to the extent they ever had any. Sadly, their voices are often the only voices that the non-committed majority hear.

    So would I sign up for that program if it existed? You bet your country ass I would. Do I think it’ll ever exist? Of course not.

    1. avatar Nate O says:

      I hate compromising on what should already be a right, especially after we have compromised so much with all the gun laws that have been put in place since the 20th century (or since ever I guess one could argue). Training and a permit shouldn’t be a requirement for a right but it will be very difficult to keep making that argument today for a national carry permit. If we keep moving at a good pace with states adopting constitutional carry maybe some day the need for an national carry permit will be significantly less outside a few territories or weird jurisdictions. Although I think it would be pretty scary having the freaking BAFTE running the permit system, it’d be 10x worse than a form 1 for an SBR if I had to speculate!

  39. avatar John Thomas says:

    nah. no government permission slips to exercise God given liberties. i dont care if its pragmatic, its still wrong.

    1. avatar Parker says:

      “God given”. This is what I mean when I say both sides of this debate overplay their hand.

  40. avatar Icabod says:

    First “compromise” on the gun issue becomes, for the anti-gun crowd: “you have a cake. We’ll compromise and I get half. What do you get? Well half the cake of course.”

    There is no reason carry cannot be treated as with driver’s licenses. Each state issues and sets the standard. Somehow we can muddle along with this and can drive anywhere.

    You want a national carry? Think about the cake. By the time CA, IL, NJ, et al get through the requirements will be outrageous.

    1. avatar Parker says:

      The obvious difference being that I can use my Hawaiian drivers license in every state and territory of this country. But I can’t take my pistol from Virginia to Baltimore or Washington DC – much less carry it.

  41. avatar Paul R says:

    I half like it. I would prefer wording more along the lines of no state may unfairly burden a citizens 2A right.Then define the limit of the burden. Legal understanding, training etc.
    With that defined any state that offers a permit that meets that maximum standard would automatically grant reciprocity in every other state. Licencing is still state controlled, no federal involvement and lower requirements can still be enenacted by individual states, e.g. constitutional carry.

    You can fight all you want over what the maximum burden is but no state can block your rights unfairly. The other alternative is to stamp your feet and cry that nothing should be needed (which it shouldn’t) but that isn’t working to well in a lot of places. The world outside of the tea party and a teenagers bedroom, though, works on compromises.

  42. avatar Another Bob says:

    The best step forward would be a federal law that recognizes the vermont model as the correct interpretation of the 2A. Not very likely. I would accept a drivers license that had a medalion (or something) showing I was eligible to purchase fire arms. Similar to buying alcohol. The vender checks off looked at id. you take your purchases and go home.

    1. avatar Parker says:

      Except that age never lowers, while being able to lawfully possess firearms is not. So, you know, they’re nothing alike.

  43. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

    “This license would require documentation of additional training and expertise,…”

    And who would be the arbiter of what “additional training and expertise” are acceptable to qualify for a national carry permit? Duh? It would create a bureaucratic paper storm that would make the NFA waiting period seem like a short pause. No, the answer is not more government hurdles; hurdles that can be raised by the whim of political fiat. As Reagan said, “…government is not the solution to our problem,….government IS the problem.” Again…still. The sad truth is, there are only a few people still alive who would remember what America was like before the rise of the statist agenda at the turn of the century. Anybody who was born after 1913, probably doesn’t even know what a properly functioning, limited government republic, used to look like. We have only known a growing government intrusion into our everyday lives. The properly functioning government of a constitutional republic, should be nearly invisible to its people.

  44. avatar Mercutio says:

    a minor quibble with the author’s premise, which actually provides support for his suggestion:

    “(LEOs and retired LEOs) already enjoy what are essentially ‘National’ carry licenses”

    – um, nope – HI just sh*tcanned a proposed law that would have made it easier for ex-LEOs to carry. Law was proposed because the current situation is designed to prevent ANYONE from carrying. HI may be technically a “MAY Issue” state; in reality it’s a “NO WAY IN HELL” state.

    point is, if even a favored, fair-haired group can be denied it’s rights at the state level , a national override is required.

  45. avatar Gman says:

    Sorry everyone, I just can’t let this go.
    BADGES, BADGES, WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN BADGES

  46. avatar ken says:

    Robert, you’re acting like the anti-gun crowd. Make rules so they can be “enhanced” later. That makes you being played as a sucker.

  47. avatar The Pontificator says:

    I want a CCW sash to go with that CCW badge.

  48. avatar Gunr says:

    I think we should just grant an up dated CCW permit to anyone who has had a permit for a specified number of years without any infractions or criminal convictions.

  49. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Not just no, but hell no.

    As an alternate suggestion: end all LEO carry exemptions. Equal protection under the law, and the right to bear arms not further infringed by ineffective “enhanced” training.

    Natuonal reciprocity. End LEO exemptions. Eliminate “gun free zones.”

  50. avatar racer88 says:

    No. Next question!

  51. avatar Anthony says:

    I’ve long speculated about why it is that LE’s are considered an elite exemption. Because five (or three, or seven) city council members voted to the authorize them arrest powers? Because the officer graduated from some state developed training program vetted as to efficacy (by some back slapping group)? Because said officer “qualifies” once/twice a year on some idiotic static range?

    I have private citizen colleagues who have well over 1000 hours of training in the use of deadly force from nationally and internationally recognized training programs, e.g., Suarez, Strategos International, S&W Academy, Firearms Academy of Seattle, MassadAyoobGroup, NRA LE/Security, ThunderRanch, etc, etc. I’d put up any one of them against any dweeb out of any LE “academy”, any time, any place with respect to competency at arms and sophistication as the the legalities of use of deadly force.

    Just think if those credentials were required to EXPLETIVE DELETED vote. LOL LOL LOL

  52. avatar John Fritz - HMFIC says:

    Oh jeez. Not trying to bust your balls S.L. but your idea sucks. I suspect that a lot of the positive responses here in the comments come from people who live in states that require you to do the little training hoop-tee-do before they allow you to conceal carry. Blech. Pennsylvania, amazingly, is not one of those.

    How’s this? Walk up to designated LEO. Hand him/her your completed application and twenty bucks. Go chamber-check your EDC while you wait three minutes to see if you have any warrants/felonies. Walk back. Take picture. Stuff five-year nation-wide CCP in your wallet.

    Done.

  53. avatar JimmyDelta says:

    I’m in. Not because it’s the right thing to do, but because I prefer to be lawfully armed in as many jurisdictions as possible *while we continue the current fight*.

    1. avatar Nate O says:

      I think that is a reasonable stance instead of just pouting that we shouldn’t need a permit and should never compromise. You can’t double down when you’ve got nothing to double down with.

      1. avatar Paul G says:

        Why do you say that? The anti’s have been doing it successfully for decades…..because we always capitulate. Giving up less isn’t a win, but settling for less new regulations t

  54. avatar Matt from Oregon says:

    I’m down for it! As long as the training isn’t seriously expensive, the background check doesn’t require an SF-86 or is expensive, the NFA goes away, and we can have firearms delivered to our doors.

    1. avatar Nate O says:

      I think the whole BS of SBR’s could seriously go away. I read an article about the ATF wanting to stream line form 1 applications for SBR’s. Theres a current lawsuit pending with SCOTUS regarding Machine Guns so I’m hopeful.

    2. avatar Paul G says:

      Dream on…..

  55. avatar Skyler says:

    That badge is EXACTLY why I don’t support national reciprocity laws. It gives the feds another wedge into another part of my life that I don’t feel a need to allow them to have.

  56. avatar pod says:

    The one thing that scares me about national reciprocity and things of that nature is a “lowest common denominator” standard. If national reciprocity means that each state rolls back to “may-issue”, I cannot support it. I’d rather deal with the inconvenience of having to find alternative defense methods in the slave states (and still enjoy the fact that my FL CWFL is recognized in 30+ states) than have to go back to a may-issue permitting model, or worse, a model where each firearm requires a permit.

    The precedent is there. Look at the drinking age. States can set their own, but in order to receive federal highway funds, they have to go with the most restrictive (lowest common) standard of 21+.

    The only fair scheme is Constitutional carry, nationwide.

  57. avatar Mike Bowie says:

    It appears to me that some misunderstanding exists relating to the protections afforded under LEOSA. The act confers no license to possess or carry firearms in all jurisdictions nationwide. It establishes a presumptive defense framework under the law which if met, would bar prosecution, however may not protect against arrest or detention. NYPD has a link which may explain both city policy and aspects of the law as viewed by the NYPD.

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/understanding_hr_218.pdf

  58. avatar Roymond says:

    Modifications that would allow me to support this:

    1. No fees.
    2. Federal tax credit of $500 for purchasing a carry weapon.
    3. No records — the card gets printed in a way that can’t be forged.
    4. It’s shall-issue to anyone with no federal crimes.
    5. Standards are set by the NRA, JPFO, and GOA.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email