A Compromise National Concealed Carry Permit Proposal

By Jeff S.

As the word “compromise” should suggest, this is not intended to be an ideal proposal or one that comes anywhere close to what most gun rights enthusiasts would like. Instead, it’s intended as a proposal that addresses the major concerns of likely opponents of any national concealed carry reciprocity bill, while also addressing the concerns of gun rights supporters to provide a proposal with the greatest likelihood of actually being enacted without creating undue liabilities.

The major concern of gun control er, uh gun safety, no, wait, “gun violence prevention” supporters is the scary idea that virtually anyone could be licensed to carry a concealed gun in their precious community, rather than only in those backwards states that actually allow them now. This appears to be a fairly wide-spread concern, even though it ignores the fact that current CCW laws in their communities do little to deter criminals from carrying (especially if their community has a catch-and-release style of non-enforcement).

Their worry also ignores the very low crime rates in many states, such as Vermont, that don’t require any license or permit at all. Unfortunately, even irrational fears need to be addressed if they are sufficiently widespread as to cause significant political opposition.

The major concerns of gun rights supporters are the imposition of stricter requirements than under current laws, the potential for creating a backdoor government registry of gun owners, and the likely obstruction of any proposed permitting system by gun-hating state and local governments.

The basic proposal is to establish a federally authorized concealed carry permit which would have to be recognized in all states, territories, possessions, and districts of the United States.

To address the concerns of gun control supporters, the proposed  federal CCW permit would require a minimum standard of firearms training, based on the stricter current requirements that states have (since the intention is to remove the concern of those in restrictive locations who fear less-vetted people carrying guns in their community). There would need to be some limitations to the requirements to assure that the standards are not unreasonably burdensome.

If a number of moderately restrictive states have similar requirements, a few outlying states that are much stricter should be ignored (and residents there can mull over why their state trusts them much less than other state governments trust their residents). A couple of base points might be that whatever required training, testing, etc, should not be greater than the firearm-specific training required of police officers, and should not be greater than whatever training (if any) is required for one to be licensed as an armed security guard, bodyguard, etc. (in those states that require it).

Of course, this would not placate the hard-core anti-gun zealots, but they will never be happy with any law that allows more people to be armed to defend themselves. What the minimum standards should do is satisfy the much greater number of people who are terrified of the idea of just anyone walking around with a concealed gun, but who are merely uncomfortable with the idea of trained citizens being armed.

With some basic training and testing standards established, there will be a need for training/permitting facilities, which presents the potential for gun-hating governments to try to sabotage the intent of the law. To reduce the ability of state and local government to obstruct implementation, the CCW should be a national document, which a citizen can obtain in any state.

So, if the government in Maryland or DC takes steps to block approval of facilities, citizens could travel to Virginia and go through the permitting process there. This would still impede those whose access to transportation is limited (at least while the state or local government is sued for non-compliance), but would at least help out a significant portion of the population who currently have no hope.

An obvious concern for a nationally based permit is that some would try to use it as a back door to creating a registry of gun owners. To prevent this, permitting facilities should be private operations (subject to certification by state or federal authorities), and the actual issuance of the permit should be done by the facility, with records kept there in a manner similar to a FFL maintaining records of firearm transfers.

Thus, once a facility is certified, neither the federal nor state government maintains a database of permits issued by the facility, but any law enforcement investigating a particular incident can check that the facility listed on the permit is certified (this certification would be on a central database) and contact the facility through the information available on the permit to check for validity or particular details relevant to the investigation. This decentralized scheme for issuing the permits should address the concern of creating a backdoor registry.

Another major concern of gun rights supporters is the threat of a new national scheme of interfering with existing CCW laws. The federal CCW permit system would simply be overlaid onto the existing laws, leaving current state laws and reciprocity agreements unchanged.

However, it should be noted that there is some risk that, with a national CCW scheme, gun control activists in less restrictive states will push for stricter state CCW requirements, using the national permit as a model to follow. Similarly, such a national permit would likely undermine the support for states loosening their concealed carry laws, as opponents will argue that the national scheme should be sufficient.

This downside (from the view of gun rights supporters) seems unavoidable, and the question is whether the effect of increased pressure against reduced CCW restrictions would be sufficient to offset the benefit of a system that would allow for broader legal concealed carry in locations that are currently excessively restrictive, and the eventual normalization of concealed carry as the predicted wild west shootouts and blood in the streets fail to materialize.

comments

  1. avatar David says:

    No. The Constitution should be enough.

    Having feds establish criteria by which people can exercise a constitutional right is a no go. If it is legal for someone to purchase a gun, it should follow that they can carry it.

    1. avatar Broke_It says:

      Well said. How have we come so far from this most simple of reasoning? If you can possess you can carry.

    2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Agree 100%

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      That’s a nice thought you can enjoy from the inside of a prison cell if you try it in NYC.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Then NYC has got to go. Thanks for identifying part of the problem.

        Last time I checked, that communist piss ant patch of a piss ant communist state, was still U.S. Sovereign Territory. WTF’s up with that.

        1. avatar Raed says:

          How exactly would New York “go?”

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Miami 2017

        3. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          “How exactly would New York “go?””

          Well, there’s always the ‘Escape From New York’ model… 😉

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          How would NY “go”? I’m thinking a few B-52s flying wingtip to wingtip.

      2. avatar Ed says:

        Then, if you are going to be kidnapped and imprisoned by an illegal motion anyway, why not USE the gun on the ASSHOLE trying to kidnapp you in the first place? The we’re “Just following orders..” excuse didn’t fly for the O.G. Nazis…why does it fly for these new wave nazi fucks?

    4. avatar arc says:

      Mhmm, COTUS is enough. The Federal and state governments have no authority to restrict, license, infringe, etc, on armaments.

      No compromises, respect the rights of We the people or get out of office.

      1. avatar HEGEMON says:

        COTUS should be enough, but some of the offending states like NY and CA will COiTUS you for exercising your rights.

    5. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

      NO FEDERAL PERMITS What we need, like other civil rights, is a way to enforce our state permit. The current National Reciprocity bill that passed the House does it. The Second Amendment is like the 13th Amendment in that it needed to be enforced Freedmen’s Bureau, Section 1983 Civil Rights law or a marriage certificate.

    6. avatar frank speak says:

      if you’re interested in a real compromise…and not the fraught with peril scheme you’re proposing…then I suggest the “safe passage act”….this would establish a federal exclusionary zone limited to federal highways [usually interstates]…where your permit [if required] would have to be honored regardless of the state you’re in…said zone could extend for up to a mile on each side of the highway except for where it passes through densely populated areas…defined as populations of 50,000 or more where you would be limited pretty much to the highway itself…this would be a lot easier for the “difficult” states to deal with as you’d just be passin’ through with no intention to linger….

      1. avatar Alan Wayne Rose says:

        High pop zones would need to be clearly marked, so probably wouldn’t work. I’d just say primarily Interstates but maybe enforce on some highways, especially the ones that cross state lines, and add a buffer zone that includes exit area convenience stores, gas stations, restaurants, and hotels. And give the law sufficient wording and teeth that antigun areas would be afraid to challenge it like NYC does to travelers who get caught up at the airport.

    7. avatar ROBERT says:

      It’s all well and good to scream about gun control and NYC, but that’s going to ger you nowhere. The Sullivan Act has been in effect for over 100 years in NYC. It was passed to “reduce the crime wave which was rising due to gangs, etc. Well, you can see how well it has worked there. ….
      So, stop screaming, and get something started that can be universally accepted for now. ……. The work on more change later.

  2. avatar JMR says:

    No fucking compromises.

    Gun owners are the only ones that ever compromise.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      There is no compromise needed,as it is already the supreme law of the land the 2 nd. Amendment and under the 14 th. amendment every state in the union has signed on to it,it just needs to be enforced nation wide.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        The Constitution includes all Amendments.

        Everyone should check this out:

        https://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      even trump gave little support to national reciprocity…but a federal permit has too many risk factors to be seriously considered…..

  3. avatar DaveL says:

    Don’t look now, but apparently the 9th Circuit just told Hawaii that open carry was a constitutionally protected right. Yes, that 9th Circuit.

    1. avatar TCP says:

      Meh… If the ruling makes it past the inevitable en banc hearing then I’ll get excited.

    2. avatar Shire-man says:

      They’re scared shitless cases will be making it up to the SCOTUS now so they’re swallowing their own vomit ruling against their woke ideals to prevent it from happening.

  4. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Not gonna read this. The premise is stupid…

    1. avatar jwm says:

      The old, in your face trolls like cysco kid and realturd failed miserably. They even contributed to the failure of gun control.

      The left is trying to play it smarter. They have people like this and the fudd wing, actually made up of their people, of the NRA and guys like Nanashi trying to appear as gun owners that support middle of the road compromise. They are just trying to stay in the gun control game.

      1. avatar UsedToBePun says:

        Are you kidding me? I made a guest post here on TTAG a while back laying out all of the reasons why National Reciprocity was a bad idea and a backdoor to future Federal level restrictions on all States.

        The comments were overwhelmingly against me and how stupid I was. Because how dare the poor slaves in NY, NJ, CA, etc. not have the same rights afforded to them while other states like KS and AZ have closer to true constitutional 2nd amendment rights.

        Nobody pays attention to the fact that State Laws, some bad, some good, are much easier to change or overturn because they are focused rather than try to get the horsepower to change Federal Law. Cases in point being the NFA, GCA, etc. How many times have supposedly 2a or constitutional respecting republicans controlled the executive and both houses of congress and yet nothing has ever been done to walk back existing federal regulations?

        And yet most gun owners seem to think that national reciprocity is God’s gift to them.

        At least it seems like maybe the tide is turning…

        1. avatar jwm says:

          The one time that Federal .gov must intervene is when human and civil rights are being violated at the state level. We are all Americans, regardless of our zip code.

          If a state may ignore or violate the constitutional rights of any citizen without repercussion from the feds then the constitution is null and void and we have only the rights our neighbors vote for us at the state level.

          Then we are all truly slaves. Slaves to the majority mob.

      2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        “The left is trying to play it smarter. They have people like this and the fudd wing, actually made up of their people . . .”

        The Soviets called it “agitprop” and “disinformation”. Old wine in a new bottle.

      3. avatar Jeff S. says:

        JWM – Any substantive objections to the proposal, or just the cheap ad hominem attack?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… what part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?

        2. avatar Jeff S. says:

          Proposal does not create any greater infringement than currently exists, and would reduce the degree of infringement in those areas that are currently restrictive.

        3. avatar ropingdown says:

          Given the many reciprocity agreements in place, and the ability to obtain a non-resident permit in many jurisdictions, it seems the thrust of the proposed legislation is to somehow bail out handgun owners in the extremely violative-of-rights states.

          This is counterproductive. We must first obtain clearer and more comprehensive support for the 2nd amendment in SCOTUS. That struggle is well on its way, but not yet complete. A national CCW permit, under the terms described, would probably (as a statute) be found to be an unconstitutional infringement on the right of states like CA and NJ, under present SCOTUS case law. Why? The extent of permissible state restrictions has been vaguely described, and cases based on alleged infringements by NY and CA have not yet been granted cert. First things must come first in struggles to enforce the constitution’s clear meaning.

        4. avatar MeRp says:

          Here’s an objection: increasing the permitting requirements for my already “blue” state doesn’t seem like a winning strategy. Keeping more records of, effectively, all gun owners, even if they are decentralized does not seem like a winning strategy (remember; these training centers will be of limited quantity and all known to the Fed; if they really want to they can simply FISA warrant, no-knock raid them to get all the lists of all the people).
          National Reciprocity is better; then each state can set the rules for the vast majority of people present (ie their own citizens) and visitors can just do what their own state requires. Otherwise we’re not moving forward, but taking a step back, and for the sake of but a handful of states.

  5. avatar Oldsarge says:

    Overall I like your idea. The main worry I’d have is that self defense laws vary widely state to state. Most CCW training includes state law on self defense. What would be a justifiable self defense shooting in Georgia might land you in jail in New York.
    We need something and I appreciate the careful thought you’ve given this proposal.

    1. avatar Raed says:

      You make a good point here, but I don’t think there is any way to get around the all the when where and how in each jurisdiction. If one state allows me to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol and another does not or one jurisdiction requires me to notify a police that I have a weapon during a traffic stop and another one doesn’t I’m going to do my research to figure it out. I know it’s a burden but I take it on as the responsibility of carrying.

      1. avatar Alan Wayne Rose says:

        A shooting while operating under a Fed permit would be judged in Fed court using Fed law?

  6. avatar jwm says:

    I don’t see the need to compromise with human and civil rights violators. We will have constitutional carry before the end of Trumps second term. Why compromise?

    The dems are destroying themselves by clinging to the far left lunacy. Another election cycle or two and they are done as a viable party. Hopefully, whatever new party steps in to fill the void will have learned the basic lesson preached by bill clinton. Gun control is the 3rd rail. Avoid pissing on the 3rd rail.

    1. avatar TurboPascal says:

      “We will have constitutional carry before the end of Trumps second term. Why compromise?”

      LOL! delusional! Do you even have a clue as to how government works? The HoR will loose its majority this fall. The Democrats will retake the house — something that has happened to every sitting president except for one — people get fed up and vote the half of the house out. The Senate could be split but their is a chance the Republicans will keep the Senate but not with 60 votes. How exactly will that legislation go through? Lastly, since Trump has taken office, enumerate for me all the things he has done for gun rights? Please list them?

      There will be no Trump second term. The Tariffs will rock the economy and there is no single economist that believes we will not have a recession in late 2019/2020. Trump is finished but you keep believing. He did nothing for gun owners except getting one good SCOTUS in and maybe a second but that is it! Trump will do nothing for gun owners. He is not the savior you believe he is.

  7. avatar Marcus says:

    How about we go one better and a have a national weapons card that freely allows the transfer and purchase of weapons for individuals with the same cards across state lines. How about it also allows for concealed carry on airline travel and serves as a means to acquire NFA items without a tax stamp so long as your a card holder. Its like a permanent background check that ensures your legally able to carry any weapon for as long a you maintain good legal standing.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      That “national weapons card” should be nothing more than a copy of the United States Constitution (Second Amendment) and MacDonald ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that incorporates the Second Amendment to the states.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      pipe dreams!…however I like the idea of an FCL [federal collectors license]…that would allow you the same privileges of an FFL without “engaging in the business”….something we all used to do anyway until ol’ bubba took it all away!…

  8. avatar Alec Johnson says:

    Automobiles kill many more people each year than firearms

    And yet…. we do not have a federal drivers license…

    This bridge was crossed a long time ago.. States have to recgonize other states licences.. drivers, marriage, or otherwise…

    See Article IV, Section I of the US Constitution..

    If the State refuses, they need to re-examine whether they belong in the Union…

    A

    1. avatar n64456 says:

      The problem becomes the CC states that have no paperwork to show in a “permit” state… They can address that issue by offering a permit for residents that travel to other states.
      Going thru that right now in my CC state; even tho they went CC, I still wan the PRL when I travel to a “reciprocity” state.

      No need to get into a pissing contest with another stae’s LEO over “right to carry” when you can just show them your card… We all see how some LEO encounters go with armed citizens these days; no need to add fuel to the fire at that point… JMHO

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        They need to ASSUME EVERYONE IS ARMED ANYWAY. Why just stop the ‘good guys’?

        They bad guys will be the same damn problem they always are, and the good guys will do their same damnedest to keep from being confused with the bad guys.

  9. avatar little horn says:

    i would chime back and say “we should always CONSIDER a compromise” but as others have stated, we seem to be the only one’s compromising on anything.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Compromise ? Sure.

      Like, if they shoot themselves in the mouth with a flare gun, then we won’t help them to.

      Deal.

  10. avatar what would spock say says:

    A reasoned foray into a legitimate problem-that being, many states will never recognize another state’s issued permit for reason XYZ. Many will see the word “compromise” and dismiss everything else written. It is not harmful to advocate for a national permit given certain assumptions (protections for existing processes that are less restrictive so that option always exists). To the “never compromise” crowd, we all agree the 2A is all the permit that should be needed, but this is not (and will never be) the reality for everyone in the country. Statists gotta state, so having a secondary option that traps them into a corner is a good thing not a bad thing. It is pretty easy to add rules that prevent data storage or transmitting (other than the back check) at permitting facilities, etc. Getting such a thing written and passed while we (supposedly) have a friendly congressional/senate/executive lined up seems to be a bigger challenge than we all thought despite a glaring need.

  11. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    They only thing we need from Congress on this score is real 50 state and DC national reciprocity. I wi) take mine with a side of Hearing Protection Act, please.

    In reality, we just need the Republicans to grow a pair.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      You seem to forget about other US possessions like The US Virgin Islands, Guam, Midway, etc that should also be allowed to carry firearms.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Oh jeeez, Guam? Those people are dangerous enough without firearms. Love them, but they are. : )

        Sure, Guam, all the world should get the RTKABA, it’ll only affect the ‘good guys’ anyway, the bad guys DGAF.

    2. avatar TexTed says:

      Asking the Republicans to grow a pair, is … optimistic. They wouldn’t even repeal Obamacare.

      What you really need, is for Trump to grow a pair and start making this a priority. The Republicans in congress are terrified of going against him in any measure at all. So if he makes it his priority, and a priority for the midterms, they’ll line up every single one of ’em to vote “yes”.

      (and remember, the House already passed it, it’s just the Senate that needs to.)

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    I just want to keep the “rights” I have in ILLinois. I don’t give a damn about North Korea. Go all in for gun rights Trump. Get Kavanaugh in. Then I’ll care about hypothetical circlejerks😩

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’m gonna feel a lot better when he is confirmed.

  13. avatar Michael says:

    Things finally got sorted out here in AZ. What other States want Constitutional Carry. The progressives are having their long overdue melt down. The RINOs are pretty much stuck in the “compromise corner”, they’ve painted themselves into. Looks like a good time to finish draining the swamp and putting an industrial hit of chlorine in the shallow end of the gene pool. They’ve bet everything and it is apparent they’re holding nothing. Let’s call ’em and watch ’em, once and all, bust out.

  14. avatar Pelvicpunch says:

    I dont think we should compromise at all. I also dont think we should put anymore reliance on the federal government. It already has too much power and oversight. If it were just facilitating protections of the 2A (or any other civil right) then maybe, but not an elaborate, expensive licensing scheme.
    We just need to kick the states that trample on civil rights in the teeth and bring them back under the Union, and not let them run a strange psuedo-nation.
    California being one of the biggest violators.

    1. avatar luigi says:

      “We just need to kick the states that trample on civil rights in the teeth and bring them back under the Union, and not let them run a strange psuedo-nation.
      California being one of the biggest violators.”

      Jefferson is rolling in his grave.
      I don’t like it either but I don’t think federal power and compulsion is the answer to states doing dumb and tyrannical things. The federal government was created to provide for defense and regulating commerce, not getting states back in line. California needs to change, but that’s going to have to be done by its citizens, and I say that knowing full well what a monumental task that is.

      1. avatar UsedToBePun says:

        So you want a giant tyrannical thing to enforce with actual force and coercion the smaller tyrannical things?

        Did you even think about that before you wrote it?

        So if and when the giant tyrannical thing wants to force YOU and your smaller tyrannical thing to do X, which you wholeheartedly and vehemently disagree with, I assume you’re just going to bend over and take it solely because you want the giant tyrannical thing to enforce anything it deems “just”. Would that be a correct statement?

      2. avatar Pelvicpunch says:

        Thats true too. I didnt think about that when i was writing my original comment. It just amazes me that people in this state have elected these idiots, and essentially voted their rights away. Its sad. And like other i want better lol.
        Sometimes Im shortsighed in achieving goals lol, Ill blame it on being young;)

  15. avatar Sam I Am says:

    The Second Amendment does not repeal this clause from Article 1 of the Constitution: “Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

    The Second Amendment prevents Congress from neutering the militia by the act of confiscating the arms of the militia (under the guise that if Congress is to arm the militia, then it can decide to not arm the militia). While at the founding, the militias did have weapons of war quite equal to that of the standing army, does that truly mean the militia can have any weapons it chooses to afford? Consider….

    Congress passes a law that under Article 1, Clause 16, every able bodied person from the age of 14 to 95 shall be issued a single shot rifle (of Congressional specification), 1000 rounds of ammunition (the militia buy their own practice ammunition), and a bayonet, or hunting knife (of Congressional specification). Further, the legislation requires federal funding of the armaments, and repairs.

    If the above came to pass, it seems “the people” are permitted to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment satisfied, and the way paved to remove from the militia those weapons not provided by Congress.

    Congress has allowed its militia powers to languish and atrophy for too long?

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      The Revolutionary War (the U.S. one, FUCK ALL ELSE) began at Lexington & Concord with the British Army attempting to disarm THE CIVILIAN COLONIALS OF THEIR PERSONALLY OWNED [weapons and] POWDER STORES KEPT IN COMMUNAL “MAGAZINES” OR “LOCKERS” ONLY DUE TO ITS EXPLOSIVE PROPERTIES.

      ALL OTHER DEFENSE OF THE U.S. (AND ANY TALK FROM ANYONE ABOUT MAKING THE U.S.) ESSENTIALLY CAME LATER. That’s why there’s a 2nd Paragraph to our Declaration of Independence, which essentially says (ALL OF US TO EACH OTHER)

      “I DON’T GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU DO, I’M CHUCKING THIS WHOLE FUCKING THING IF I CATCH YOUR STUPID ASS TRYING TO FUCK THIS UP.” And that’s a promise that you better keep to.

  16. avatar Daniel says:

    Keep the Federal Government out of this as much as possible. Its an absolute sham. At least persons in non-free states can move to pro-freedom states. This is nothing more than one more bit of power that would be given to the leviathan.

  17. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    First of all, no. No more compromises. Others above have said it better and/or more forcibly than I can but it can best be summed up as the 2nd Ammendment is my permit to carry.

    However, your article and idea behind it is interesting. There are some problems I see that I didn’t see addressed….

    How does this idea handle the states that don’t have any permitting requirements? Will places like Arizona and Vermont be required to comply with this new plan?

    Who gets to define the required level of training for this permit process? How often can/will that requirement be changed? I mean if the requirement is four hours what is to stop a state like from NY working to change the requirement to eight or sixteen or even a hundred hours?

    Then to the actual permit…. what information is on the permit, who is in charge of that information, and what penalties (if any) can be imposed on politicians or government workers who ‘leak’ that information to anyone?

    What about merging the system with the DMV so your carry permit is simply an endorsement on your DL? I mean why create yet another bureaucracy when we already have one in place?

    And then to the gun-owning part of the permit…. one permit good for all guns? Or can a State say you need a handgun license and a long gun license?

    And in the Spirit of Compromise(tm) can we abolish the NFA registry in exchange for this idea?

    1. avatar Jeff S. says:

      Proposed law would not directly change any state laws or reciprocity agreements. Impact on Vermont would be that it would allow Vermonters to get a nationally-recognized CCW (currently, their best option is to get a NH non-resident pistol/revolver license, which has some degree of reciprocity with other states, although likely less than a resident license does).
      There is no legitimate reason for any CCW to specify the weapon. That’s essentially saying that the citizen is trustwirthy and responsible with their particular .380, but not with a 5-shot revolver or a M-1911. The only purpose of specifying a particular gun is to give petty bureaucrats their token bit of control over the citizens that they, begrudgingly, are allowing to exercise what should be a recognized right.
      Purpose of minimum standards specified in the law is that those are the standards that should be acceptable, and no stricter standards should be required (that could have been more clearly stated). Stricter standards would require passing an amendment to the law. More likely obstruction would be excessive requirements to certify a facility in that state, which would need to be addressed in the details. If nothing else, more mobile residents could travel to a facility in a different state and get their permit there.
      A lot of other details would need to be worked out; proposal as presented is intended as a framework for discussion.

  18. avatar Hannibal says:

    Yes, this would be a good idea. No, it won’t work because the anti-gunners don’t want it and pro-gunners have been conditioned to parrot “no compromise” without understanding the reason why.

    Namely, that every compromise in terms of gun laws for decades hasn’t actually BEEN a compromise. It’s just been more restrictions under the guise of compromise- i.e. I’m going to take 20% of your cake and the compromise is that you can keep 80%, for now (see you next week)!

    Plus recent SCOTUS picks have made people think that this is all going to go our way, so why ‘compromise’. Except this would be a perfect time to try and get a law like this because of position of advantage instead of overplaying the one card we hope works. That one card could be destroyed easily since it rests on the personal and professional lives of 5-6 men and the political whims of a country over 2 years. While the democrats pay too little attention to the court, conservatives trust too much in it.

    1. avatar Raed says:

      Well reasoned and well stated!

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Wait, shouldn’t we let the NRA weigh-in???

      Fuck NO!

  19. avatar Alex Waits says:

    I did not get much compromise out of your piece.

    I would be down for a national license that comes with minimal training requirements and modest fee to support the facilities and employees, provided the following;

    Issuance is shall issue.
    Issuance is within 14 days.
    BGCs are no longer required at point of sale after issuance in any state/territory.
    Bearer of said license may carry whatever and how ever they choose.
    Bearer of said license is no longer bound by any GFZ.
    Bearer of said license is subject to state of residence laws concerning use of force.
    The NFA is abolished.
    The current NFA registry is destroyed and any bearers of stamps are refunded the tax paid.

    After the above criteria has been met, I’ll support a National License.

  20. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “Compromise” implies that both parties give up something to get something. What are we getting here? The ability for out-of-staters to carry in the shitty states? Not worth it, especially when we’re on the verge of having a 2A-friendly Supreme Court for the foreseeable future, which may put some of these issues to rest for good, without having to create yet another permission slip for Mommy Government to sign.

    1. avatar Raed says:

      We don’t really give up anything as this doesn’t replace the state carry laws.

  21. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    No. Just. No.

    We don’t need a national carry permit. The one I have in Georgia should suffice.

    Article IV, Section 1 –
    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.

    My driver’s LICENSE works in every state. My marriage LICENSE works in every state. My concealed carry LICENSE should too.

    I’ve yet to see a rational explanation of why it isn’t.

  22. avatar luigi says:

    so now it infringes on not just states’ rights but also the 2nd amendment and the 10th amendment. awesome

  23. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    While I’m personally ok with the government having me on a (ccw) de facto registry of firearms, it’s less than ideal.

    Are there any good ideas to create an easily physically verifiable license that is impossible to make a database of?

    Off the top of my head, maybe a database has EVERY citizens name associated with a number. When you are issued ccw, you are given a card with this number by ? But no record is kept. Law enforcement can call a database, enter you name, then enter the code provided and get a yes or no.

    This just an example of what I mean, I’m not saying it’s a good idea. I don’t trust the .gov to keep a record of every call made to verify and work backwards.

    And anti gunners are going to have to compromise a lot. I want a full auto M2 on a half track technical as my daily driver just for starters.

  24. avatar Anymouse says:

    What Congressional power would this license fall under? Tax or commerce would be a stretch, although commerce has been bastardized in the past to include most anything. Militia is a stretch too. Being Constitutionally questionable isn’t a good solution since a hostile jurisdiction could readonably invalidate it.

    1. avatar Jeff S. says:

      Regulation of interstate commerce would seem the most likely. At least as legitimate as other federal gun laws that have been deemed OK as long as they apply to any firearm that has been in interstate commerce.

  25. avatar Harm uden says:

    Negative. Full faith and credit in the constitution should automatically uphold my right to bear arms in other states. Also, the cost for this minimum amount of training will be a hurdle for some people, thus restriction their rights once more.

  26. avatar Raed says:

    So to everyone who believes that there should be no compromise must believe in the current system.

    This clearly advances the rights of those who wish to carry. It does away with the filings in every state you wish to travel with the duplicate fingerprints, fees, waiting time, and background checks. Even still you’ll probably never receive a permit in CA or NJ etc. All progress has a costs but I think that the benefits of this proposal far outweigh the costs. True we shouldn’t need a compromise but this is far better than risking a defense of the second amendment in a NY city court.

  27. avatar Bugei says:

    How about when someone is arrested FOR COMMITTING A CRIME, while carrying a firearm, and it’s someone barred from ownership (felon, 5150/5250), we charge that person with illegal possession?

    They’ve passed law to try and keep felons and mental cases from carrying. We already HAVE law that makes that unlawful. Why are the law abiding required to get a license or permit to avoid something another law already forbids?

    Prior restraint is wrong. Getting a hall pass from local, state or federal hall monitors is wrong. It may be law, but it’s not THE law, as in the Bill of Rights.

    I’m watching the Ninth Circuit open carry decision with interest. What will California’s rabid AG do about this?

  28. avatar John McPherson says:

    Just made redundant by the Ninth Circuit, which held open carry is 2A protected. Get the Supreme court appointment voted on soon. Write your senator.

  29. avatar TheSophist says:

    I’m a fan of compromises.

    So before we go further, what are the anti-civil rights brigade compromising here exactly? “Allowing” us to exercise our natural rights whose protection is written into the Bill of Rights? Not sure that’s enough of a compromise for me personally….

    I’d like to hear more about what they would have to give up first before thinking about what MORE we have to give up.

    1. avatar Jeff S. says:

      They would be giving up the current system where restrictive states simply refuse to grant any sort of reciprocity. Which they should have to do if the current national reciprocity act that passed the House were going somewhere, but it was introduced in the Senate last year, and seems to have vanished. Republican-led Senate and a President who claims to be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but the bill seems to be forgotten. What are they waiting for?

  30. avatar GunnyGene says:

    This is a really, really bad idea. But guess what? The Politicians will love it. Which is a really really good reason to shoot it in the head – a lot.

  31. avatar kevin says:

    I’m not opposed to the idea, but it should be no more expensive or burdensome than obtaining a driver’s license.

    1. avatar js says:

      Then by your reasoning it should be ok to force a person to get a license to vote and to take 16 hours of voter training correct? Driving is not a right, 2A is a right. If we license 2A, then we can license the press and free speech. See what a slippery slope this is?

      1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

        Actually, based on recent history, there should probably be a license to both vote and have children.

  32. avatar John Q Public says:

    “The 2nd Amendment is every Americans Permit!—-The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed !!!!” What’s so hard to understand about that…? We certainly don’t need the gun community making the 2nd Amendment into an “Exclusive Gun Club…” Where only the Specially Privileged need apply!!!!

    1. avatar Warlocc says:

      Tell that to NY, MA, CA, NJ, and so on.

  33. avatar CC says:

    I get the concerned and objection to certain details, but the people saying the Constitution “should be” obviously don’;t live anywhere where lack of full shall issue is in place.

    It is not just about Maryland, Mass, NJ but when you throw in NY state and California you get huge numbers now prohibited through may issue. California will steadily increase obstacles in CCL until it is effectively may/no issue.

    You can talk all the bullshit you want, but I bet no one saying the constitution is enough would dare carry in NYC. 99.9% of legal gun owners are NOT going to break any concealed carry laws since this means they will mean a felony hit, near certain prison term, and loss of all gun rights, including ability to keep a firearm at home.

    I oppose this because getting the federal authorities involved, presents its own problems.

    There is also the simple practicality: the suggestions made by the author ave already failed to get majorities never mind 60 in the senate. Even the water down reciprocity legislation, which would STILL
    leave residents of Cali, NY, Md, Mass, NJ screwed, and banned from carrying got less votes this go around than a few years ago.

    Where reciprocity is good on the legislative agenda is simple: It is an EXCELLENT tactic to throw as a poison bill to block other bullshit. ie: “Universal background check? Sure, if you also agree to reciprocity”

  34. avatar MyPrettyAR15 says:

    I tried having this discussion a few times with liberals up here in Massachusetts and before 15 minutes had expired they were requiring people to have 16 weeks of basic training, military deployment, 10 references, psychiatric evaluation and notes from employers and other family members before some poor peasant could take home a lowly little pistol to keep in the sock drawer. It is not worth compromising because any law will open the door a little more and who knows what CCW requirements would end up being. Secondly I don’t think that upfront training requirements and certificates hanging on the wall is going to matter much to a spouse who is desperately seeking a pistol to protect herself from an abusive spouse. The second amendment applies equally to the poor man who only wants to protect him/herself in a high crime neighborhood as it does to the rich man who can fly around the country taking concealed carry classes every weekend.

    As far as I’m concerned the 2nd amendment is protected by the 14th so that means we should be afforded equal protection. I’ve said this before and I’lll say it again. Reread the Obergefell decision legalizing same sex marriage. Take out any reference to the word marriage and substitute gun freedom in it’s place. The problem I see is that no one is willing to bring up a “carried in the wrong state by accident but it’s still protected under equal protection”. Sometimes I wished the ACLU actually cared about gun rights. They could dispense with this nonsense so easily.

  35. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    “Shall not be infringed”.

    How about we have the same requirements for ALL rights- lump sum. Require a background check, waiting period, ID and extensive training for VOTING and heads would explode. Even proof of literacy isn’t required to vote!

  36. avatar SouthAl says:

    I think all of the reasons this is a bad idea have been mentioned already, so I don’t really have anything to add there, other than to note that the argument that I should agree to more restrictions in my state for the sake of making things possible in other states, is ludicrous. And if you think that states would not be pressured to simply use the federal requirements across the board, I think you are delusional.

    I find it stunning that an article like this on TTAG has yet to garner a single instance of “flame deleted”.

    1. avatar Jeff S. says:

      As stated, proposed law would not replace any existing state laws, reciprocity agreements, etc. Only impact there is whatever increased pressure for stricter state laws results from the government putting a stamp of legitimacy on required training, testing, etc. (as noted in the article).

  37. avatar Sora says:

    NO! NO! NO! NO!

    NO FEDERAL CONTROL! NEVER! EVER! GIVE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANYTHING!
    They will ALWAYS take more!

  38. avatar Jeff S. says:

    Huh. The Pavlovian revulsion to the term “compromise” was even stronger than expected. The gun control movement has truly poisoned the word with their perpetual misuse of it (“You let us restrict this, restrict that, and ban the other thing, and in exchange we’ll give you absolutely nothing.”)
    It seems that many have much stronger hopes for the current national reciprocity bill than I do. Anyone know why it is stalled in the Senate after being introduced last year? Several months with a Republican-controlled Senate and a President who’s a self-proclaimed strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, and it doesn’t appear to be going anywhere. Why the delay?
    Many shared my concern that letting the government give a sort of stamp of legitimacy to the concept of requiring training & testing to carry concealed is going to strengthen pressure to make that standard. That seems to be the primary liability of the proposal, which needs to be weighed against the benefits. I do notice that the gun control movement never seems to worry that passing whatever stupid restriction is currently fashionable will create a new standard that will weaken support for even further restrictions that they’ll demand later on.

  39. avatar John Galt says:

    Absolutely NO.

    How about this…….The president get a competent / non absentee attorney general to sue every state that has legislated restrictions on the second amendment.

    My 2 A rights ,come from G*D and are enumerated in the constitution, the supreme law of the land……….hell of a lot more protected than gay marraige.

    Where the hell is the AG???

    I expect / demand national reciprocity AT THE LEAST or why should I give one moment or dollar of support to ANY alleged “representative”

  40. avatar Gunr says:

    First, I’m not for any compromise period! But, if this thing actually comes to be, here is something that must be considered.

    I’m a very senior citizen. I acquired my CCW almost 20 years ago, (when I was healthy). Today, I probably couldn’t hit a 20″ bull at 25 yards. I have a “balance” problem, and cannot keep steady enough for a decent shot.

    However I never obtained my permit with the hope of having to shoot someone who was not up close, and in my face. Shooting a thief running out of a WalMart entrance, has never occurred to me.

    So, is this limitation going to take me out of the running, if I should apply for this super permit?

  41. avatar Mort says:

    No. Absolutely no. No Federal control… they already have too much control with the ATF, 4473s & FFL, NFA, et al.

    National Reciprocity WAS the ideal compromise. The compromise between state laws, and the… Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

    I do not believe the paranoia that National Reciprocity could be used to “federalize gun control” through “back door” and all that… and nobody has ever, in my experience, explained their fears adequately without ignoring basic facts. But THIS “Federal Permit” nonsense validates and adheres to all of National Reciprocity opponents’ fears (i.e., of those who claim to be 2A proponents).

    So, no. Serve up National Reciprocity again… eventually, we will swing hard enough to knock it on the Prez’ desk.

  42. avatar HEGEMON says:

    No to any “compromise”. When it comes to firearms, COMPROMISE=CONFISCATION, just like “registration”.

  43. avatar mark s says:

    SOOOOOOOOOOO glad to see most people here understanding the implications of any new federal law with ACCOMPANYING TAXES AND FEES AND RESTRICTIONS on the unimpaired , God implied , natural right of self defense , penned to paper under sworn promise , by those great , envisioned , historically educated and well rounded men to whom we own the greatest of gratitude and respect .
    You know as soon as it was made law the cost would ” necessarily skyrocket ” so only the wealthy could participate .
    Laws do not amplify freedoms for all , they restrict freedoms for most .
    ” Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties , says what the states can’t do to you . Says what the Federal government can’t do to you , but it doesn’t say what the Federal government must do on your behalf “. Barack H. Obama
    Thank God !
    ……………….and we need to keep it that way .

  44. avatar TomC says:

    One problem created in this proposal and then totally ignored by the authors is that by proposing a PRIVATIZED system, the “facilities” conducting the training/testing will certainly have a ridiculously excessive fee for the permit.

    1. avatar Jeff S. says:

      Do training facilities in those states that currently require it charge excessive fees? My impression was that the staff are interested in getting people licensed and try to make it accessible, but I don’t have personal experience, living in NH where one merely fills out a 1-page application and pays a small fee ($5 or $10 (can’t remember which) for 4 years – little enough to be worth the reciprocity and exemption from the [legal] gun-free school zones act compared to permitless concealed carry since 2017).

      1. avatar John says:

        FFL’s are all private, and I can get a transfer under $20. All CCW training in my state (MO) is privatized, and extremely reasonable. All firearm facilities that currently have training would simply get the certification and add it in with their current curriculum and there would be plenty of competition that will keep it reasonable if the gov doesn’t interfere.

  45. avatar John says:

    “the eventual normalization of concealed carry as the predicted wild west shootouts and blood in the streets fail to materialize.” The left will never feel it’s normal, regardless of the facts. Those in the middle who don’t carry won’t find it any more normalized because it’s concealed, which is good, but doesn’t help them see first hand how much the liberals distort the facts. We already see that in states with very permissive concealed carry, it doesn’t feel any more normal to those who don’t carry because they don’t see it and the liberals distort the facts.
    “This [states feeling the federal statutes are good enough] downside (from the view of gun rights supporters) seems unavoidable”. Only unavoidable with a federal system. My state has great laws and I don’t want those reduced to the national compromise with NY and Cali, which is what our libs would push for if this was passed. Continue to fight for protection under the Constitution and solely state control of any (constitutionally permitted) restrictions and permitting.

  46. avatar Michael says:

    I live in the free state of Arizona. Do not tread on me. No compromise, no retreat, no surrender. The carrot is always there to distract us from the stick. Sooner or later, under the Progressives, everything not mandatory becomes forbidden. Couldn’t trust ’em before, can’t trust ’em now, won’t trust ’em tomorrow. 30

  47. avatar Bryan Pennington says:

    Something like this comprise will disarm a lot of good Americans and turn a lot of others into criminals.

    Ever since The Truth About Guns has changed hands I noticed a more than little lean to the left in your articles. How about the rest of you fellows? No more discussions on compromise. We have “SACRIFICED” much more than our share!!!

    1. avatar Jeff S. says:

      “will disarm a lot of good Americans and turn a lot of others into criminals.” – How? It leaves in place existing carry laws.

      “Ever since The Truth About Guns has changed hands I noticed a more than little lean to the left in your articles.” – Entry in the content contest, so not really their article.

  48. avatar Alan Wayne Rose says:

    What gov agency will administer this program, and what oversight will they have over the issuing body? I see a lot of ways this can go wrong.

    Fed can’t make states maintain reciprocity. States might cut off reciprocity and tell everyone to just get a Fed permit. Some states might void their permits entirely since the Fed permit is available.

    Places where permits are invalid vary widely, where would a Fed permit be or not be valid?

    Some states require 24/7 computer checks. I can see them balk at “call back during business hours.” Which probably means you’ll be sitting in lockup until then.

    One viable alternative (maybe) would be for Congress to pass a law that forces the states to create reciprocity with every other state. Not sure if that’s Constitutional though. It would however avoid the Feds getting directly involved in the details of interstate carry and put it back on the states where it belongs.

  49. avatar Alan Wayne Rose says:

    SCOTUS needs to step up and say carrying a gun is legal everywhere open or concealed. Then Congress may pass laws that regulate it. The Constitution was never meant to be a law book, but all laws should reflect the Constitutional principles they are based upon. Maybe they will see those last four words that appear nowhere else, “shall not be infringed.”

  50. avatar Alan Wayne Rose says:

    “Where is the compromise here?”

    Duh, the compromise is getting a National CCW Permit. If you want to up the stakes, that’s fine, but don’t act like you’d not be getting something.

    “The 2A is my permit.”

    The 2A is a statement of a God given right, it is not US Code.

    “Every state recognizes my Driver’s License.”

    Every state recognizes your DL because all the states got together and made a Compact (name now changed to something more sexy) and SHOCKER they decided to COMPROMISE and make virtually all driving laws identical for the Compact to work. Oddly NY still won’t let you make a right on red, which has been standard in the US for what 30 years?

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