Question of the Day: Federal Concealed Carry Permit a Good Idea?

“Let’s just bypass all this reciprocity stuff,” TTAG commentator Binder suggests underneath a recent Quote of the Day. “The states can still have their own rules, but a Federally Issued National CCL would override all local laws. Have training that is around 2 days with live fire and you have matched or exceed the training requirements for almost all states. Keep the cost down to $200 for 5 years. Make it shall issue and have a nice day.” Nice day or nightmare? Baby steps towards nationwide Constitutional Carry or a giant leap off a cliff into the abyss of government tyranny?

comments

  1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Throw in the ability to ignore ‘gun free zones’ and I’d think about it.

    1. avatar fiun dagner says:

      since its a goverment background check already let it act as a bypass for the atf checks on silencers and other NFA items too. i’d definitely jump on that bandwagon

      1. avatar Levi says:

        Seriously. Why fill out a 4473 every time when you have a national ccl. Knowing the fed though it would have to be carefully crafted to not have some interpretation allowing Antigun presidents to implement rule changes forcing you to register the firearm you will carry and require finger prints and anything else they can dream up. Things like that have a lot of back door ramifications if it isn’t carefully done.

        Seems to be the federal government should just do what it was supposed to do with that line of regulate interstate by forcing all the states to just get a long and recognize permits.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          They could get around the commerce clause by changing the name of the permit from ‘Concealed Weapons Carry Permit’ to something more like ‘Deputy US Marshall’. That’s the way it was done in a lot of places back when there was no legal provision for carrying a firearm.

        2. avatar binder says:

          Gov. William. I like the idea of the trained militia act. Do riffle and handgun qualifications with a NFA overide. Love me some machine guns.

    2. avatar binder says:

      ****************************************************************************************************************************
      000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

      OK, I need to add three things to the original comment I made on TAG.

      The first thing is if they manage to get non-resident national reciprocity passed I would prefer that. To be honest with you, I really doubt that is going to happen. The “licensing scheme” I came up with was to kill most of the training and background check arguments that would oppose any bill passing and give a way for LA and NYC residents a way to get a permit.

      With federal rules, we would hopefully have preemption over local handgun laws including ammo and magazine capacity.

      As for the $200, I put that in there so congress could not get rid of the law by playing the kill the funding trick
      Now as for some of the other stuff. I really like the Idea of the CCL also being a FFL for personal use. Now that would be really cool.
      000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
      *********************************************************************************************************************************

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Yep, as much as I enjoy the 20 minute conversations with my kitchen table FFL, it would be a huge bonus if I could just bypass the process and have my guns sent straight to my door. No 4473 to fill out. You might have to log the buyer’s or the buyer’s FFL’s information if you sold one though.

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Add a training exemption for those who cannot obtain training for reasons such as costs or location. Remove the fee and require the government to issue the license within a certain time period. Require the government to issue a specific reason for denying anyone. Add a cause of action with damages and attorney’s fees if the license isn’t issued within the time period or is wrongfully denied.

        1. avatar binder says:

          The whole point of it is to get is passed and keep people from being busted by cops for BS. Not to be perfect. The #1 objection to national reciprocity is training. Take that off the table and we may actual get somewhere.

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          The danger is that there are liberals who would support it because looking at it through lawyers eyes they would see that it is establishing that the federal government can decide who gets to be armed — thus eliminating the Second Amendment in fact while leaving it on the books.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          The number one objection to national reciprocity is guns. Besides, if an exemption were included for the poor and Democrats voted against it because of that, Republicans would have a great argument about how Democrats don’t care about poor people.

      3. avatar JSW says:

        There is already a ‘federal ccw permit’. It’s in our DNA as human beings, as government is reminded by the Second Amendment.

  2. avatar Ralph says:

    Okay, sure, it’s the camel’s nose under the tent. But I rather have the camel in the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.

    If the federales can pass such legislation, let them. If the POTG don’t want to obtain such a license, I understand.

    1. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

      As long as it doesn’t preempt state licenses and reciprocity, I’m okay with it. But concerning Binder’s idea of a $200 fee + training….I’d only be willing to *think* about that for a LEOSA-style ‘carry anywhere’ license. Otherwise, I’ll take my chances with my home state’s license, thank you very much.

      1. avatar binder says:

        The $200 is so the licensing stays funded.

        1. avatar Marco says:

          Ask Connecticut how well fees for licenses works, and if they stay reasonable and cheap.

          Then ask a Californian if funding schemes like DROS which are explicitly for funding background checks only are used for that, or if the government will raid the piggy bank if fees are high enough there’s surplus. Then see my earlier point.

        2. avatar binder says:

          Ask about the DOJ reinstating gun rights. There is actually a program for doing that , but guess what, ITS NOT FUNDED. Oh, and when was the last time the NFA stamp prices went gone up?

        3. avatar Red in CO says:

          It’s not funded because the politicians who control the purse strings refuse to do so, NOT because there is no money for it

        4. avatar Johannes Paulsen says:

          Pennsylvania manages its licensing scheme with $20 fees. In fact, they *decreased* the fees thanks to efficiencies from automation not too long ago.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      In my last book, which I won’t mention by name, the main protagonist has obtained her 2A2C50 federal permit. That is, Second Amendment (2A) Concealed Carry (2C) 50 States. She complains about still needing government permission to exercise her RKBA, but thinks it is a good step in the right direction of Constitutional Carry. the 2A2C50 (Later amended to 2A2C51 to included W.C.) is a four week residency course at FLETC including a live-fire shoot-house competency requirement but permits her to carry anywhere a LEO can carry except on passenger airplanes.

      The argument is that as with State-issued permission slips the 2A2C51 card helps in normalizing everyday citizens carrying firearms and as such advances the case for national Constitutional Carry without the government infringement. Her EDC, by the way, is an S&W 686 in a cowboy rig.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        (Later amended to 2A2C51 to included W.C.)

        This was intended to read:

        (Later amended to 2A2C51 to included Washington D.C.)

      2. avatar Demo Man says:

        “The argument is that as with State-issued permission slips the 2A2C51 card helps in normalizing everyday citizens carrying firearms and as such advances the case for national Constitutional Carry without the government infringement.”

        Nonsense. More ridiculous police state fantasy land from the hick brigade.
        “The police are my friends. We’re all on the same side.”

        Meanwhile in the real world where police unions control most state legislatures and Congress with the collusion of NRA, the Illinois Chiefs of Police were the point cop mafia pushing for Duty to Inform in Illinois’ 2013 concealed carry bill. It’s for “officer safety.”

        LEOSA has no Duty to Inform, so a retired cop from Nebraska can walk down Michigan Avenue in Chicago, and when a uniformed cop asks if he is armed, the retired Nebraska cop does not have to answer.

        A licensed citizen from Illinois must answer, and the cop has the option to kill them for “resisting” since Illinois’ DTI is criminal, thanks to NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde. Great work!

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    Government hates gun owners. This is essentially a bipartisan absolute the world over with very few individual exceptions. Don’t help them march you to the ovens with shit like this.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      Agreed. And the requirement for training, a license fee, a license that expires & would need to be renewed is the reverse of the direction we are head and what we want.

      Hell no would I agree to this. This is a dumb suggestion and something I’d never support.

      1. avatar Dwi23 says:

        Exactly. Why the hell do I need to pay for the priveledge of exercising a right?

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Think of it as a “don’t hassle me, officer” card. For two hundred bucks every five years, any time a cop is worried about your gat you show him the card and he goes away.

        2. avatar Uncle Pickle says:

          I argue our bigger problem is that there is not a dedicated police force whose only jurisdiction is over people who have sworn to uphold the constitution.

          Wander the streets, and arrest police for betraying oath of office when they arrest some guy who’s filming the police HQ or lie about incidents. Make them as paranoid as possible.

          They are far, far too comfortable right now. Begging for the right to be left alone by buying a $200 license to say “I’m chill and not gonna rob a CVS” is kind of backwards thinking.

          A cop driving drunk and beating his wife is statistically far more likely than a CHL holder committing a crime, and if you could filter out police CHL holders the rate would be even lower.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Agreed. The governmnet, really ANY and EVERY government, hates that citizens have guns. It isn’t in their interest to loosen the laws with federal licenses. If they were at all inclined in that direction, they would have done so on their own.

      The only way this would come about is by hook and crook. They’d steal real rights and offer up illusory national carry in exchange. No thanks.

      We don’t need more compromises granting government more authority to dole out our rights as though they were personal favors from a federal pez dispenser. We need to roll back the evil empire’s scale and scope.

      1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

        Agreed. Fuck the Feds, as there would be a bunch of ATF fuck-ups running that operation.

    3. avatar Joe says:

      Perfect answer – do not give the feds an inch

    4. avatar Demo Man says:

      Shire- “Don’t help them march you to the ovens with shit like this.”

      Correct. But remember that most NRA members are low class losers with no self esteem. They could never cut it the military or any sort of real world, so the prospect of a concealed carry badge or a piece of plastic in their wallet is a powerful incentive for them to give up their Constitutional rights.

      In order to understand this, the hicks would have to be able to read the Constitution, or be able to read, period.

  4. avatar DrewR says:

    I would greatly prefer National Reciprocity, but I would accept a Federal CCW as an alternative.My primary thought process on the whole issue is that normalizing legal CCW in the most antigun states would eliminate the justification for limiting the right to carry. Will it work? No idea, but I hope so.

    1. avatar Demo Man says:

      “…normalizing legal CCW in the most antigun states would eliminate the justification for limiting the right to carry.”

      Another sheepdog fantasy. Maybe Wayne LaPierre can adopt you as an adult. He’s the father that many NRA members never had.

      “Will it work? No idea, but I hope so.”

      Hopes, dreams, lies, and ignorance. It’s the stuff NRA conventions are made of.

  5. avatar PeterK says:

    If it supersedes nics checks I’d probably be down.

    1. avatar VerendusAudeo says:

      What problem do you have with NICS checks? It takes maybe two minutes to fill out the form. Is your problem with the fact that you’re stuck looking at all of the other guns you could have purchased while waiting?

      1. avatar NEIOWA says:

        That it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Still don’t understand “Shall not be infringed” Barak?

      2. avatar binder says:

        I have a three CCLs and a Illinois FOID and I always have to wait days on the background check. I would just like to at least be able to have my FFL run one without have to go in first and fill out the damn form. Illinois has a 3 day waiting period and I had a local gun store that did not bother with running it after I filled out the form, but tried doing in when I cam back to pick up the gun.

        1. avatar Demo Man says:

          Good news! Since Illinois’ SB836 “improvement” to Rep. Brandon Phelps concealed carry bill was passed (or was it snuck through?) on the last day in May 2015, you can now use your CCL instead of FOID to buy ammo at HickMart!

          What Richard Pearson didn’t tell you in the ISRA press release is that Phelps and NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde cut a deal with the IL state police to place forcible gun seizure for CCL’s in the SB836 bill. Oops!

          The tradeoff was to keep the state-owned range at Sparta open and pump up the economy in southern IL by selling a few shotguns at the Grand American. Thanks Todd!

          I hope it was worth it now that Illinois police can blow away licensed citizens “accidentally” when disarming them for “officer safety.”

  6. avatar Swilson says:

    Hmm…nationwide Constitutional carry sounds better. This is one of those ideas that sounds nice and on its face seems to solve some problems. But in practice I am sure it would be a nightmare. The whole concept of licensed concealed carry hasn’t been around all that long. I’m not sure how I’d feel about relinquishing it to the Feds. Sounds like it could be a win for people living in slave states.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Swilson,

      “Sounds like it could be a win for people living in slave states.”

      That is the ONLY reason to support a federal concealed carry license. Even then, I think it is the wrong solution. Why? First of all, Congress can re-visit the law any time and push the training requirements or license fee beyond the reach of most people. Second, a Democrat controlled Congress (and President of the United States) could simply repeal such a law.

      What we really need are two additional U.S. Supreme Court justices who can smack down the current unconstitutional laws.

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        And who are actually willing to hear cases about blatant constitutional violations, which is currently one of the biggest hurdles

  7. avatar Robert T Foy says:

    No way, “Draining the Swamp” is not giving more power to the Central Government. We just through a bunch of socialist out; now you pose we turn around a give the Fed’s power over your right. Its a right because you were born a living free human. It is not granted buy “any god or government” .Hell no!! We have enough laws and beyond some.

    1. avatar Matt G says:

      Agreed – A federal license means that we’ll need to add a bureaucratic entity – or supplement an existing one – to oversee such processes. An entity that can change its rules via executive order. Or left unfunded by congress. Or for that matter, over funded and looking for problems to solve that don’t really need solving.
      Think of the genesis of the ATF since its inception and you’ll have an idea of what my worries would be.

      1. avatar Swilson says:

        Yes! We need more bureaucracy!

    2. avatar binder says:

      Funny, but don’t the Feds come down on local PDs who violate peoples civil rights? O would you rather be a the mercy of the good old local boys?

  8. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    Sounds like more compromise. Where to go from here in the future……probably even further down. Time to take a stand-Sál tor hjärta stál.

  9. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Neat idea, solves some of the problems firearm owners face.

    But….

    It starts from a flawed premise and that is accepting the anti-rights position that it is acceptable to place restrictions on a right, that training or registration are required to exercise the right. Poll taxes were ultimately deemed unconstitutional and this idea is nothing more than a poll tax. I am expected to pay the government to get permission to be able to exercise a right guaranteed me by the Bill of Rights.

    Or put a different way, play the Word-Swap game:

    The states can still have their own rules, but a Federally Issued National *Voter ID* would override all local laws. Have training that is around 2 days with live fire and you have matched or exceed the *Voter ID* requirements for almost all states. Keep the cost down to $200 for 5 years. Make it shall issue and have a nice day.

    Still sound like a good idea?

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      You’re never getting full, no-permit-needed carry on a national basis as long as the country remains as one.

      You can fail to accept this political reality if you choose, but I hope you don’t hold you metaphorical breath in a corner waiting for it and ignoring any laws that would achieve more for us in the meantime.

      1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        “…You can fail to accept this political reality if you choose,”

        I choose.

        The idea IS a good one, a Federal Level Permit that can, at least in theory, supersede quite a few of the State level bullcrap.

        The problem is still the training and testing requirement portion of the idea. Who is going to set the standard for what is trained? Who is going to set the standard for the testing? And what is to stop them from changing those standards next year? Lets run it out, think it out to the end of the process….

        Federal Trainers and Federal Training Standards. You have to have a curriculum approved and in place before someone can teach. And you need the teachers to stay up to date. Not any different than now so no problem yet. Because these kinds of things can get expensive quickly lets start with one location in each State that the teachers have to go to/through to get certified as teachers. That is fine if the center is near you or your State is small. What if the Center is in Tallahassee and I live in Miami, 12 hours away by car?. What if the Center is in Los Angeles and you live in Hornbrook, 16 hours away by car? Well, it is only the teachers that have to do this so if you want it you’ll put in the effort.

        Training and Live Fire. The suggestion is two days with a live fire exercise. Sound good. But why two days? A fire arm is not a complicated tool and even though we make political hay out of the sheer number of different laws out there, this is a Federal Level course so there aren’t that many laws to deal with. And each training would be tailored to the area where the class is held so you only need to present the Federal Level and the Local Level rules, not all mutli-thousand (citation needed) options across the entire nation. So couldn’t this be done in four to eight hours? Maybe less?

        And then the timing…. do you have to do two days together? Or could it be split with one day here and the other day a week later? Could it be done in smaller sessions like two hours on Monday Night for the next four Mondays?

        These are all easy enough questions to answer, lets jump forward two years to the time after all of these questions have been answered. What then?

        Someone is going to go through the class, get the permit, and then for whatever reason they shoot someone. OMG! See! I told you Guns R Bad and we can’t let this happen we have to do something think of the kids….. Obviously the training isn’t enough we should expand it to three days! Or just anyone can get an instructors certification we have to crack down on these instructors that aren’t doing a good job. We have to crack down on the bad apples of the instructors world. Now the instructors have to go through double the amount of training and certification. The students have to do through double as well.

        Jump forward a couple more years, budget cuts in some area force the Federal Training Center to close. Now the instructors have to go to the next state over to maintain their certification. Now the instructors can’t/won’t be certified. Now the students can’t get their Permit because it was set up in the beginning so that you can only do it in the State you live in and your State doesn’t have the capability right now to issue permits….

        I know this is slippery slope thinking and it couldn’t possibly happen here (ha!).

        Just keep thinking about that moist delicious cake full of gun rights we use to have (http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/). Are you really so willing to negotiate just to keep a few crumbs because it might get your cake back sometime later?

        1. avatar binder says:

          Its there to give the congress critters cover when they vote for it, that’s the only reason. My personal opinion is you need to get trained as part of selective service.
          We teach kids civics, we teach kids how to vote, we should teach the how to bear arms.

        2. avatar Robert T Foy says:

          Read Karl MarX it all sound wonderful and harmonious, but look what happens when you apply it. No keep your electronic shit off my firearm, you bumped your head. Or maybe you are you a Brit looking for your Queen?

        3. avatar Demo Man says:

          Robert- “Or maybe you are you a Brit looking for your Queen?”

          Binder is not a Constitutional scholar or a Brit. He’s one of the Larry the Cable Guy types in Illinois that sold out Otis McDonald and got backstabbed by NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde, but still hasn’t figured it out yet.

          Now you know why Illinois’ 2013 concealed carry bill is a cop’s dream come true.

  10. avatar Ed says:

    Just the idea of having a license to exercise a constitutional right is wrong, period. If there was ever a time to NOT compromise, it’s now. We need to demand that the word of the second amendment be adhered to. Anything less is a loss.

    1. avatar DDay says:

      Don’t forget a license you need to pay for, and required 2 days of training to qualify for. The training isn’t free either and 2 days worth of training would be quite an expensive tax on a constitutional right.

      1. avatar Ed says:

        Yeah, and then the feds come up with testing criteria that NO ONE can meet. Then where’s your 2A right go?

        1. avatar DDay says:

          Yep. Or they’ll set up training through some gov’t body and put up hurdles and red tape to make it very difficult and time consuming to pass. Creating a new power for gov’t is NEVER a good idea. They’ll abuse you non stop.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      This is asinine.This is exactly the time to “compromise”- except by the anti playbook, which means to make gains at their expense. The democrats have been doing it on guns for decades, and that’s how they’ve won a lot of battles. They have looked at the situation and saw that they couldn’t get everything they wanted, but they pushed hard for, say, half of that, and got it. Then the next year they pushed for more.

      Political reality: you are never going to go from what we have no to some sort of magical unicorn land of national ‘Constitutional’ carry. The country is too divided for such a victory. Maybe you might get there but it would have to be an incremental battle. But the republicans are going to lose seats- probably a lot of them (judging by history) in the next election. Better get a victory now or you’ll be pouting four years from now with nothing more than you had today.

      1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

        Enacting more regulatory standards is going in the opposite direction of rolling back anti-2A restrictions. A federal carry license would merely set in motion a way for the federal government to further restrict carry rights down the road via executive fiat. By manipulating licensing requirements, the standards could be made nigh impossible to meet. Then by imposing federal standards over state via supremacy clause…………….

        1. avatar binder says:

          And whats stopping then now? What law can the feds not pass as it is. Don’t you know, everything affects interstate commerce?

        2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

          “And whats stopping then now? What law can the feds not pass as it is. Don’t you know, everything affects interstate commerce?”

          Vigilance by the populace and pushback when appropriate. Mass infringement of rights by the Federal Government, typically doesn’t happen quickly but rather, is gradual and incremental. They especially exceed in taking advantage of relinquished ground and building upon that. For this very reason the populace shouldn’t be so eager to cede control over excercise of rights to the fed.

          The commerce clause is an excellent example of this as it was first conceived to only affect goods transported between states for taxing purposes. Sometime later, when paired with the “necessary and proper clause”, the courts expanded the interpretation to mean that the fed has virtually limitless regulation of anything that can be transported between states. 10th amendment be damned.

      2. avatar Robert T Foy says:

        Your cup is not half empty, it’s just full of shit.

        1. avatar Demo Man says:

          In order to attempt to understand NRA members pretending to debate complex Constitutional legislation, you would have to voluntarily drag your I.Q. down thirty points and have your frontal lobes removed.

          Now you know why NRA HQ can pay the electric bill. The hicks keep sending them money no matter how many times NRA sells them out. Yee-haw!

  11. avatar Joe R. says:

    Yes!

    Let’s call it . . . umm

    The Constitution of the United States? DUH!

    or let’s call it the hands-off clause of the 2nd Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. [?]

    OR

    WE CAN CALL IT YOUR “F U, I DIDN’T ASK” PERMIT.

  12. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    No.

    It is a terrible idea for the fed.gov to get into the business of issuing licenses for exercise of a right that is constitutionally protected against any and all government infringement. Besides being wrong as a matter of principle, it is terribly unwise as a practical matter. A fed.gov carry license would come with fed.gov-defined licensing requirements and fed.gov-defined carry requirements. And fed.gov-defined licensing and carry requirements would eventually become de facto state.gov licensing and carry requirements.

    Any activity that the fed.gov can license, the fed.gov can severely restrict the exercise of. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself why you’re paying more than 1% in fed.gov individual income taxes – or why you didn’t get to keep your doctor or your medical insurance plan.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Any activity that the fed.gov can license, the fed.gov can severely restrict the exercise of.”

      *This.*

      How many times has little *surprises*,( like the Hughes amendment), been slipped into legislation?

      NO!

    2. avatar Robert T Foy says:

      They will “Mandate/dictate” it just like failed Obama care!! What hasn’t the government ! @#$%^& up? Chip

  13. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    “Whenever someone must buy a license or pay a fee to exercise a right, then it is something less than a right. It is in fact a mere privilege, subject to the whim of petty bureaucrats. Fundamental rights are not abstract tokens that are given or sold by other men. They are in fact primary liberties bestowed upon us by God, our maker. Rights are not substantially secured by asking, “Mother may I?” of any government agency. Rights are more properly demanded or boldly seized and then conspicuously exercised regularly. This secures the liberties that have legitimately belonged to us since birth. If need be, lost rights can and must be restored through proscriptive use. If you live in a land where your rights have been marginalized into privileges, then it is either time to change your government, or to change your address. Much like a muscle that atrophies with disuse, any right that goes unexercised for many years devolves into a privilege, and eventually can even be redefined as a crime.”

    1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

      How many people did you have imprisoned for exercising their God given right to self-defense, who happened to run afoul of a man-made gun law?

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        No one said it would be easy, or painless, or without casualties.

  14. avatar Brian says:

    Absolute reciprocity, NO Federal standards, and outlaw gun-free zones nationwide: those ought to be the MINIMUM acceptable conditions for Federal pre-emption. Watch how quick ordinary Blue-Staters realize what contempt their leaders have for them when they realize a NEW Hampshireman or a Vermonter could carry in NYC but ‘William The Red’ Deblasio doesn’t trust his peeps to do the same.

    The threat of that alone might be enough to make Blue State politicos roll back their Sullivan Acts. Might: Proggies are slow learners. But listening to their squealing would be highly entertaining…

  15. avatar cd carpeti says:

    Requiring a license to exercise a constitutional right sounds like infringement to me.

    1. avatar Demo Man says:

      Thinking for yourself, as well as exercising basic common sense to anylyze the world around you?

      You will be required to turn in your NRA membership card immediately. Gun owners with brains are detrimental to the NRA mission of perpetual job security.

  16. avatar Jack says:

    My drivers license still works if I go to California. Reciprocity is logical and should honestly already exist without congress having to say so.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Bingo.

      The only reciprocity bill that should be passed in Congress is one that states that reciprocity already exists under the Constitution, and directs the government to enforce it.

  17. avatar jmf552 says:

    If they offer one, I will want one. My guess is a lot of people who dis this idea on this and other sites will go ahead and apply for a national permit if one gets offered. Why wouldn’t you? All these tin-foil hat conspiracy push backs could indeed happen, but I’m for crossing those bridges when we come to them. Sure, getting any kind of permission from the government to carry is an infringement on 2A, but hey, it’s the world we live in. If you are really so passionate about government carry permits being wrong, you should be fishing your state permit out of your wallet NOW and shredding it.

    BTW, the feds have had a national carry permit since 2004 and while there are issues with it, none that I know of rise to the level of actual problems. It been expanded three times since 2004, twice by anti-gun Obama. It is called, as you all know, LEOSA. I don’t see why the feds can’t just extend or duplicate LEOSA for CC permit holders from any state. In fact, I think tying to LEOSA would be a kind of poetic justice and it would tie it to an existing political support base. Call it LACSA, The Law Abiding Citizens’ Safety Act.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      “BTW, the feds have had a national carry permit since 2004”

      Correction: the national carry permit has been around since 1791. It’s written on parchment and stored in the National Archives.

    2. avatar Marco says:

      Correction: it states that people must have arrest powers, which states get to decide on. There’s no federal oversight so LEOSA has continued to expand to more classes of people.

      A federal permit would specify training or standards. Fail. National reciprocity is a closer fit- state-based standards must be accepted nationwide. And yes, NYC has tried to arrest out of state cops early on in LEOSA. So reciprocity is far more similar to LEOSA than a national permit.

  18. avatar Aven says:

    Absolutely not. Anthing the Federal Goverment gets involved in costs more and gives you less freedom with more strings attached. $200 and 2 days training based on Federal rules is outragious. I wrote a check for $50 this morning to renew my Virginia permit for another 5 years. Since I will only be south of the Mason Dixon Line and east of the Mississippi, my permit covers the entire area except for one which my Utah permit covers. My cost for both my Virginia and Utah permit was under $100 and I spent 4 hours in a “training” class.

  19. avatar Chris says:

    A Federal carry license system sounds pretty close to a Federal registry of gun owners to me. The licensing system in multiple states has been abused to name and locate people with a carry license through petty “journalism”. A Federal system would be abused much the same, by the anti-side looking to name, shame and harass, or by govt agencies looking to do the same.

    You may be fine with your name on any government lists so long as the political landscape is one you favor, but that doesn’t last forever. Do you still want your name on government lists when that landscape changes to one you distrust?

    1. avatar NEIOWA says:

      But it would be so much more “efficient” and convenient than having to aggregate all the state license data fails.

      Oh you thing the Obumer Fed hasn’t done so? That’s cute. Or linked to the drivers license data base (with your digitized photo).

  20. avatar No one of consequence says:

    An incomplete federal registry of gun owners is arguably better (from a tyranny standpoint) than an incomplete federal registry of guns.

    For one thing it would be a self-selected list of gun owners most serious about bearing arms. For another, it would be a shorter and much more centralized list than a list of the guns.

  21. avatar moreover says:

    well with how slow the BG system is, i’d say hell no. the concept, with some revisions, sounds acceptable but there would have to be fail-safe’s in place to keep arbitrary denials from being common.

    I would see them hosting Federally Licensed Training courses that are booked up for possibly years. But if I can still get a local state license in the mean time while i work on my National Carry License, then that might could work.

    Seems like the better option would be to turn you state license INTO a National License after taking the Federal Course or something like that.

  22. avatar Other Tony says:

    Actually yes I would go for it, because I live deep in may-issue blue state territory. No permit from home state otherwise.

    1. avatar Parnell says:

      It’s somewhat tempting but I have a problem with qualifications that exceed what cops (active & retired) in my state (NJ) need to carry off-duty. That and $200 is a little stiff for a lot of people in the inner cities who really need the self-protection. I’ll continue to hope that Cornyn sees the light and tailors his reciprocity bill to meet the House bill so those of us in the slave states can carry on our non-resident permits from other states.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        For people in high-crime areas, the opposite of a fee should be put in place: a $200 refundable tax credit for getting armed, and another $200 one to take training, and another $200 for actually carrying (though that last would be difficult to administer, being not subject to being substantiated).

        1. avatar binder says:

          That is a damn good idea, keeps it funded. Even if they pull the tax credit, you can still pay the fee

      2. avatar Other Tony says:

        I also hope Cornyn changes his reciprocity bill to remove the home state permit requirement. Then the neighboring state nonresident permit I already have would be sufficient in my home state.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    BADGES? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges! Worst BS idea I’ve heard today. The 2nd Amendment is my badge. And why do we “need” a 2 day training requirement? It’s also waaaaay too coplike to me…

    1. avatar binder says:

      The whole point is to get it passed. If you could pass it with no training I would like it much better. Hell, If you really want to make me happy, constitutional carry and gun rights can only be curbed for people on bail, probation or parole or direct cord supervision (mental illness)

  24. avatar Mmmtacos says:

    The federal government has no business making it’s own license for us. They’re there to protect our rights. National reciprocity is a step towards protecting our rights. National carry permits are a step towards federal usurpation.

    The federal government giveth and the federal government taketh.

    1. avatar binder says:

      If you can get National reciprocity to work. I think is is going to be a hell of an uphill battle.

  25. avatar Marco says:

    As a Californian (on my way out) that might benefit more from this than from Cornyn-carry-

    No. Absolutely not.

    Federal gun control has shown to be a ratchet, not a tool of freedom. The standards would absolutely be forced to be “may-issue”- there’s a LOT more opportunity for that to happen, and Dems HAVE enough power to make that happen. This is absolutely the facts. Consider this as a negotiation (like Trump!). Where the hell do we get any leverage for better terms? Especially leverage in backroom reconciliation?

    Next, state laws are easier to change than federal law. Continuously making more constitutional carry states that can carry federally baby-steps our way to national constitutional carry. Even if it’s only on a permit, the VT residents carrying on an out of state permit is a way forward for us. Even if it’s only on a permit, states are continuing to make permits last longer, cheaper, more inclusive of other weapons. Remember, the 2nd amendment says ARMS, not GUNZ.

    The federal permit will be far easier to ratchet against gun owners and get more restrictive with time, continue the statist idea only he feds can know enough to bestow carry rights and make our battle for hearts and minds harder. National Healthcare ain’t going away after Obamacare- because people get scared. National Carry is the same- but even scarier and harder for us to Make our points.

    Years ago I though national carry was the right way to go. But it will be a heavy Lyft actually more prone to failure, more prone to cronyism, more prone to ever increasing restrictions- and more importantly, lose the battle of the narrative that the Feds aren’t arbiters of rights. It distinguishes us from voting, distinguishes us from free speech, and furthers the ACLU argument that the bill of rights is counted 1, 3, 4, 5….

    Terrible idea that sounds good but does far more harm than good. It’s a trap!!!

  26. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    Why is there a price tag for a fundamental right?

  27. avatar Stu in AZ says:

    No need. We already have a federal law on the books that guarantees our right to bear arms without infringement.

    1. avatar KBonLI says:

      See how far that goes in NYC.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        If NYC is allowed to ignore the Bill of Rights, what makes you think they wouldn’t be exempted from honoring this “federal carry permit” also? Maybe not initially, but you can bet the instant Democrats regain control of the federal government the first thing they would do is allow any jurisdiction anywhere to opt out of accepting the permit.

  28. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    First off, the 10th Amendment leaves this matter of reciprocity the states, as do Supreme Court decisions. You’re doing what the Dems do: taking a federal stick to beat people and states into submission on matters that are not federal. It’s not constitutionally sound and it’s certainly not strategically wise. After all, national demographics are against us and getting worse every year. The states are our where our home games are played and won. Federal licenses would be opting for permanent away games where we usually lose.

    Second, drivers licenses are recognized among states voluntarily. It’s called the Driver’s License Compact and it dates back to the 1960s. It makes no logical sense to hold up a voluntary system of reciprocity as justification for a federally mandated system of reciprocity. Just because you and I are neighbors and lend each other tools occasionally, doesn’t mean that the HOA should compel every homeowner to make his tools available to everyone else.

    Third, and this is the most important reason that drivers license reciprocity is different from carry license reciprocity, the former served the states’ purposes, while the latter serves the individuals’ purposes. Think about that.

    DLs are reciprocal not because lovey dovey states want to make things nice and easy and convenient for you. They are so because the states wanted to share information on drivers. It used to be that if your DL got suspended or revoked in one state, you could just get another in the next state. That formal reciprocity you enjoy today means that ticket you get in another state will follow you all the way home to your state.

    I know, I know, “You should pay your tickets, you scofflaw!” I agree; be a good citizen. I’m just saying that this whole state DL reciprocity compact came about so that states could keep tabs on you, extract money from you, and generally control people. It wasn’t about expanding any freedom for its own sake. Unless there’s something, usually a LOT of something, in it for the governmnet, you aren’t getting any extra freedom. This is why slave states don’t recognize carry licenses, but happily recognize driver’s licenses.

    Ohhh….they claim it’s because of “lax standards in other states” for carry licenses. Yet, they have no compunction or hesitation recognizing drivers licenses from states with less stringent standards. For example, there are eight different age brackets for receiving a full driver’s license, ranging from 16 to 18 and various fractions within. There are also eight for restricted licenses (teenagers), ranging from 14.5 years old to 17. Yet, all states welcome all drivers, “lax standards” be damned. This isn’t about standards. It’s about money and control, as mentioned above. Sure, DC’s leadership grimly dictates that one must be 18 for a full drivers license, but they’ll gladly allow a 14.5 year Idahoan driver to roam the streets. It’s not about safety. It’s about money. They know that to get other states to play ball on tickets/accidents info sharing, they have to recognize the licenses. They’re fine with that tradeoff.

    Carry licenses are about freedom. When do governments ever just offer up more freedom, no strings attached? You’re not going to get it nationally unless it is in the government’s interest. You need to ask yourselves: what are those interests, i.e., what costs and compromises will you be forced to make to obtain what you easily and breezily proclaim is your right? What tradeoff will make the government cool with this? I don’t know, but I bet you’ll have buyer’s remorse after you make it.

    1. avatar KBonLI says:

      Not to nitpick but you need a full license to drive in NYC.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      “Third, and this is the most important reason that drivers license reciprocity is different from carry license reciprocity, the former served the states’ purposes, while the latter serves the individuals’ purposes. Think about that.”

      Okay, I thought about it, and you’re wrong — carry reciprocity serves the state’s interest, and the Second Amendment says so; it’s part of the security of a free state.

    3. avatar C.Z. says:

      I think you’re using the treatment of privileges as an analog with the treatment of civil rights. States should not ever have the right to violate Civil rights given by citizenship.

  29. avatar Bugman says:

    Make the federal gun licence be your voter registration. Free. No need to indicate if you are a gun owner or not as that might lead to infringement. Made up problem solved. For free.

  30. avatar Marco says:

    I tried to edit to add, but it didn’t work:

    You don’t think a federal permit system is subject to shenanigans?

    Hahahahahaha. The only good thing about a national permit system is people in free states will become familiar with the everyday tyranny of blue states.

    “Oh, the permitting system isn’t funded til the end of next year. No new permits or renewals”.

    “Oh, ATF is busy processing new NFA stuff. Permits are low priority. Average wait time: 5 years.”

    President: my executive order states that due to crime and due to trrrism, we have to suspend permitting while we do a full investigation.

    My executive order states that permitting is not in the national interest, so it is on moratorium until (never)

    My executive order states that new standards must be applied, including monitored live fire of at least 10,000 rounds, and the permit applicant must pay for the agent to monitor all 10,000 rounds.

    I’ve only begun. National permitting will lead to blue state regime permit shenanigans on a national level. And any attempt to liberalize will make us seem really crazy Andy unreasonable because the Feds are the ones we’re supposed to trust with our safety, and we already got a big win but we will never ever happy until 5 year olds! The nuance necessary to argue against it is too much for the average voter. Try arguing against “may issue” as determined by sheriffs And the average person think the Sheriff is the bees knees; and if you can’t convince a sheriff you’re safe with a gun you cant convince me.

    1. avatar Demo Man says:

      Marco- All correct. Some of my predictions as stated here before:

      Background investigations conducted by FBI, secret clearance style, which means ringing your neighbors’ doorbell for those civilians who don’t know this.

      Unlimited privacy waivers, so the police can plug your name into a fusion center and develop intel to classify you for the appropriate kill list when the time comes.

      Mandatory on demand drug and alcohol testing in the field by any cop in America you run into.

      License suspension/ revocation hearings conducted at ATF offices in Washington, D.C. Fly out with your lawyer or take the Greyhound bus at your own expense.

      And of course, criminal penalties for all gun-free zones, plus Duty to Inform (but not for cops & retired cops under LEOSA) just like NRA gave us in Illinois.

      Plus much more, NRA lobbyists haven’t had a chance yet to collude with police unions to sell everyone out. If the gun hicks fall for this one, it will be the chance of a lifetime to advance the criminal police state. Another giant flop is within the grasp of NRA!

  31. avatar Andy says:

    The hand that giveth is the hand that taketh away. Lots of states would just stop issuing their own, then wait for an anti admin in DC to do their squeezing out new applicants for them. Besides, who wants the FBI maintaining a register of CCP holders?

    1. avatar Demo Man says:

      “Lots of states would just stop issuing their own…”
      Good observation. Just in the past couple of years, many states have stopped issuing carry licenses, if you do not hold one from your home state.

      “Besides, who wants the FBI maintaining a register of CCP holders?”
      Good observation. You should see the original privacy waiver from Illinois’ 2013 carry bill, full FBI style on that one. Couple that open-ended privacy waiver with a federal background investigation for license holders, and the possibilities are endless.

      Some brain power with this young Jedi! You must not be an NRA member, too intelligent.

  32. avatar Alan says:

    No thanks. This would be a step in the wrong direction. The constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I’ll settle for nothing less than the ability to carry in any manner I choose without permission from the government.

  33. avatar RetroG says:

    No, for all the reasons previously listed. If the Congress wants to do something for gun owners, disband the ATF, repeal the NFA and GCA.

    And the President can direct Sessions to go after the states that don’t respect the 2nd Amendment as they are violating their citizens’ civil rights.

  34. avatar Roymond says:

    The Second Amendment is all the “permit” or “license” needed to carry as I bloody well please. The moment you allow the government to start issuing permits or licenses for the exercise of an inalienable right protected by the highest law of the land, you have conceded that government can do as it will with rights, protection be damned.

    And a fee for exercising a right? $200 is expensive as heck, so the proposal is just one more way to keep the poor and disadvantaged disarmed so they can’t be a nuisance to the wealthy and connected, so no way.

    Give me a country with no government at all rather than one where citizens have to kiss ass to get a privilege in a system built on oppression.

  35. avatar BDub says:

    Or Right to Carry States can just deputize everyone who can legally carry there, and then we can all skate through on the LEO exemptions of slaver States. hehe.

  36. avatar Ralph says:

    New York City will buy into this “national permit” thing, as long as the requirements to get one will include paying ten grand in bribes and twice that in political contributions.

    Otherwise, it’s just a race to the bottom. Ya dig?

  37. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    No it is not a good idea. Is it better than the Senate reciprocity bill? Yes. Is it better than the House bill? No. Is it better than the courts properly interpreting the 2A? No.

    1. avatar binder says:

      Agree with everything you said. But I’m not holding my breath.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        I wouldn’t hold my breath on anything passing that needs to be filibuster proof.

  38. avatar Louis Marschalko says:

    Why not a public speech permit, too? You could speak out on almost any issue in all 50 states. It would not apply in schools, federal property or courts, naturally.

  39. avatar Paul53 says:

    The reason for The Bill of Rights is to establish that the government can only use what power the governed allow it. The 2A is the most “in your face” reminder. Giving the government the power to give license the use of our right to bear arms would reverse the process and set the precedent that the governed are unable to maintain control over our government. It’s a terrible, unconstitutional idea, but most attractive to the government as a first step towards tyranny. Let’s not insult the price paid by those who established America for the sake of expediency. National reciprocity is a step towards protecting our right. Federal government licensing is a step towards losing our right.

  40. avatar Jack Clancy says:

    No, no and no.

    The Fed’s have done enough damage to the 2nd Amendment. It will become a privilege if they are given any say.

    Just say no.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      I think that the point where we could have won that fight is long since past.

      1. avatar Jack Clancy says:

        Maybe. But if we give it to the Feds it will come back on us. My trust of government is ZERO.

        Just take a look at the clowns in both parties. Every gun law enacted by Congress has been pasted with Republicans helping to screw us.

        The government doesn’t like negative rights.

        I would be ok with constitutional carry. No permit.

  41. avatar CarlosT says:

    The poverty line for a single person in 2016 was $11,700. Two days and $200 is a lot of time and money for someone in those circumstances. Even leaving aside for the moment the arguments about how this makes bearing arms a privilege, not a right, it makes it a denied to those without means.

    If the permit were extremely cheap and easy to obtain, and it offered extremely substantial benefits, such as exemption from all background checks for all items, then maybe it’s worth it. But even that’s a dubious proposition.

  42. avatar Kyle says:

    There are federal drivers licenses so I guess its okay, of course we are green lighting yet another acknowledgement that you have no intrinsic right to “keep and bear arms” without permission from someone. Though, like it or not, thats mostly shot down the crapper at this point anyway.

  43. avatar sound awake says:

    women aint gotta pay no two hundred bucks or take no two day class or or take no test or submit to no background check to excercise their 14th amendment right to get an abortion in all 50 states do they

    so why should it be any different for us

    sheeple…

    every disagreement…every argument…every shouting match we get into with every libtard we meet should be based on this argument

    every red state should pass laws that apply the same standards to abortion that the liberals want to apply to guns

    MAKE THEM START TO HAVE TO SPEND TIME MONEY EFFORT AND ENERGY TO DEFEND THE SAME BS IN COURT ABOUT ABORTION THAT WE HAVE TO ABOUT GUNS

    the more they have to defend abortion the less they will be able to attack our gun rights

  44. avatar Holdfast says:

    Think this thru…. i think the States need to keep doing their Reciprocity Compacts. And Separately the Feds need to Hammer New York City under everything possible about Carrying a weapon incident to travel / in-transit.

    Why I am not jumping on this bandwagon:

    1. In order to have National Reciprocity- you need a National Register of who has a Concealed Carry Permit.
    2. It would establish that the Federal Government has the power to REGULATE your ability to carry concealed. That is to say,
    1. it can over ride your states program.
    2. What the Feds give, the Feds can take away.

    Finally- Senator Cornyn is a weasel. He is a professional politician and I don’t trust anything he does.

  45. avatar rt66paul says:

    The feds job is the make sure we keep our rights and they need to meddle in state politics for this. It is not the feds job to issue licenses for firearms. The problem there is when we get a gungrabber for a president(it could happen). I could just see him trying to turn it into a “may issue” instead of a “will issue” process and he could call in all licenses. Better the state is forced by the supreme court to allow us our rights of self protection.

  46. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    A federal license could simply be granted automatically to the holder of a state license. This would pre-emt state laws and allow any permit holder to carry in any state ( or territory ) without creating a separate license or needing funding.

    When you are granted a state permit , you could simply check a box on the application to have your name entered in the federal system. Citizens of States who refused to allow the option could simply get a permit in another state.

  47. avatar Warlocc says:

    I’d say yes if it overrides the stupid restrictions that many states have, so that people deep in may-issue or no-issue states can get it, or so that I can put more than 10 bullets in my USP.

    I’d say no if it overrides the 2A respect that some states have that allows for Constitutional carry.

    Basically I’d say yes to it if it makes things better for blue state residents, not worse for red state residents.

  48. avatar Darkwing says:

    I do not need governments permission to do a thing that is my right granted to me by my creator, the right of self defense. If government gives you a right, they can take it away. Also they know who has the weapons.

  49. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    What training and requirements did the Founding Fathers have when they walked around with their guns?

  50. avatar kap says:

    Why give the Anti -American Democrats and big Gov more access too your information than they already have.
    First have term limits both House and Senate, make Voting record available to public, prosecute a Federal Bureaucrat (a non elected yo-yo with the most sucking power) that try’s to subjugate or modify the constitution by rules, have all proposed rules reviewed by an Electable panels of Judges for impact on the Constitution! repeal the gun control act of 1933-34!
    America wide Constitutional carry free of federal any regulation, Education system to provide training in all schools free of charge, constitutional classes from K – 12. PC agenda outlawed!

  51. avatar JDS says:

    The day people have to take a class on US government and pay for a permit to vote is the day I agree I need a permit to bear arms. I don’t ask for permission to excercise any of the rights protected by the Constitution now, why should I agree to do so in the future?

  52. avatar DetroitMan says:

    HELL NO!

    This is the same sin that the Progressives always commit: using the power of the federal government to dictate to the states. Worse, it lets the federal government decide who can carry in all 50 states. As soon as we get Progressives back in power in Washington DC (and we will, so never say “never”), we’ll have 50 states that look like California and NYC.

    Leave the power with the states. National reciprocity is the right way to achieve 50 state carry, as long as we are going to allow anyone to decide who can and cannot carry. Giving the power to issue or deny permits to the federal government is the wrong way. If the federal government wants to help gun owners, then it needs to grow a pair and have the DOJ take states like California to court (once Gorsuch is confirmed, of course), and really enforce the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise the fed needs to stay out of it.

  53. avatar mark s. says:

    I do not know if anyone has mentioned this or not but we already have a federal conceal carry law , and it’s called the US Constitution . If you obey all the other laws while concealing a handgun , the constitution also protects us from unlawful search and then seizure so we should be covered . This message needs to be conveyed to the American people more than a new law that duplicates and there-in water downs the 2nd amendment . It should be expressly pointed out by our commander-in-chief , that if any state government , city , municipality unlawfully arrest or jails a legal American citizen because they are carrying a gun lawfully when no crime is being committed then the state , city , municipality will be penalized in a Federal court by Federal prosecution on behalf of the harmed citizen in question . These states , cities , and municipalities need to understand that their anti-gun laws are anti-constitution and if they want their anti-gun laws bad enough , they will have to try and change the constitution under the rules established when it was voted on , to do so . These people have been allowed to govern and make laws that were outside their purvey far too long and our CIC needs to let them know it .

  54. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    A lot of comments have been left in this and other posts about the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division going after states that deny 2A rights to people.

    I don’t know much about the Civil Rights Division because I don’t work (and never have worked) for any government agency that would be involved in litigation with the Civil Rights Division.

    Being ignorant, I wondered “can this be done?” In case anyone else was wondering, the answer is yes. A cause of action was created in which the Attorney General can sue for equitable relief (the court telling someone to do or not do something, like don’t enforce this unconstitutional law). Here is the statute:

    LAW ENFORCEMENT MISCONDUCT STATUTE 42 U.S.C. § 14141

    § 14141. Cause of action
    (a) Unlawful conduct

    It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

    (b) Civil action by Attorney General

    Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of paragraph (1) has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.

  55. avatar Ozzallos says:

    So it’s an opt-in for government tracking.
    Sounds like a winner to me /sarcasm.

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