Would a National Tiered System of Carry Permits Be the Straw That Breaks the Hoplophobes’ Backs?

American flag gun permit second amendment

courtesy bullzie.com

By MarkPA

Now that Brett Kavanaugh has ascended the bench, the Supreme Court is likely to rule on some states’ “may-issue” practices that amount to “won’t-issue” for carry permits. The recent case of Young v. Hawaii is ripe for consideration. A three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has ruled in Young’s favor, granting him his prayer for relief to be issued a permit to open carry. That is, for an ordinary resident of Hawaii desirous of self-defense to be put on a par with armored car drivers who protect wealthy men’s property.

Likely, the holding will doom may-issue for concealed carry permits as well. The Supremes should reason that if a state issues permits for concealed carry, it may not discriminate arbitrarily. The implication may be that they could ban concealed carry, but not ban open carry.

Gun rights advocates might read such a decision as foretelling the advent of a general national reciprocity law; the most optimistic will press for “constitutional carry,” i.e., permitless carry. I predict no such leaps in a single or even a pair of bounds. Progress will be achieved most expeditiously through incremental innovations along rational extensions of previous steps. Such measures will have the best chance to be seen by the body politic as reasonable evolutions.

We have a system in place whereby about 40 states respect the right to carry and grant one another’s permits bilateral reciprocity or outright recognition. These state-to-state schemes can be byzantine and changes are unpredictable. Yet, therein lies the germ of an idea.

“Enhanced” permits are offered by: Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota and Mississippi.  South Dakota offers a regular permit, a “Gold” permit and an “Enhanced” permit. The others offer only two levels. Typically, the enhanced versions are recognized in a few more states than the state’s basic permit. Carriers with enhanced permits sometimes have carry privileges in more venues. Also, the enhanced permit may provide an exception from the NICS check where the basic permit does not.

Eligibility for an enhanced permit requires more training, live fire qualification or both. A written test is an additional requirement in North Dakota.

Now, what if the permit issuing states were to standardize the prerequisites for various levels of carry permits? This could establish a consistent, tiered set of carry credentials. For example:

  • Bronze  – background check only
  • Silver  – background check, fingerprints, and a specified training curriculum
  • Gold  – check, prints, training, and a live fire qualification score

The point of tiered standards would be to abandon the bilateral approach in favor of recognizing tiered levels of carry credentialing. Nevada might recognize the Silver and Gold cards issued by other states but not the Bronze card. The right to carry states might prefer such a tiered recognition scheme to avoid the hassle of periodic bilateral renegotiation. Moreover, legislators might prefer to delegate the politically contentious issues of curriculum and scores to a third-party committee of state representatives. Then, it would be a simpler task to choose only which tier to adopt as their state’s standard.

States eager for revenue might offer an array of options to residents and non-residents alike. Using Nevada as a purely hypothetical example, the Silver State might offer a Gold card at a higher fee than its basic Silver card. Perhaps non-residents would extend their stays in Las Vegas or Reno to take the additional training.

The stage would now be set for the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling that only objective, shall-issue laws are Constitutional. Then the last may-issue jurisdictions would be compelled to adopt shall-issue laws. These states would be most likely to adopt the most stringent prerequisites. There is no way to compel states to participate in the standardization scheme, but Congressional incentivization (perhaps the threat of withholding funds) could be inspiring.

There should accrue public safety benefits from the tiered scheme. Many carriers will apply for permits at a higher level than their home state requires to enjoy wider recognition when traveling. In so doing, they would undergo the additional requirements of fingerprints, training, or live fire tests. And Mr. and Mrs. Smith may want to keep up with the Joneses by obtaining a higher level card.

Voters will quickly accept tiered recognition as a rational means for the states to preserve their “police power” to regulate carry while promoting a nationwide right to carry (albeit only by shall-issue permit).  Recall how divisive Congressional acts and Supreme Court rulings on other firearm issues have proven to be in our federal system.  To achieve carry acceptance, however begrudging, it behooves us to propose means of making the practice palatable to hoplophobic voters.

Gun rights advocates pressing Congress to adopt a general National Reciprocity bill fail to appreciate the “states’ rights” and “race to the bottom” arguments such an approach faces.  States’ rights are a Constitutional question that has resonance.  Race to the bottom is a practical issue that needs to be overcome.  There are two ways: brute political power or more subtle persuasive coercion.

National Reciprocity already passed in the House but is stalled in the Senate.  So much for brute political power.  A general National Reciprocity bill may remain elusive.  One Congress may have a bill pass the House, but fail in the Senate.  In another Congress, the two chambers may flip. That a Vermont resident who has never passed a background check might wander about Times Square will forever remain a bridge too far for New York Senators to accept.

Congress is unlikely to try to force the erstwhile “won’t issue” states to sign onto the envisioned scheme of tired recognition.  Yet something subtler will have the same effect.  Voters should see the scheme of tiered permit recognition as rational, “common sense”, respectful of states’ rights, and promoting public safety. Too many voters will be supportive of state participation for recalcitrant Bloombergers to resist in the end.

Let’s presume the worst case scenario, that all the most hoplophobic states negotiate the most onerous permitting requirements to be issued the top tier card.  (Let’s call this tactic a “race to the top”.)  Observe that these states’ requirements will variously fall inside or outside the top tier standards. Hoplophobic states might negotiate, e.g., a qualifying score of 99/100 in the live-fire qualification, but each will set its own fees (location of testing centers, hours, etc.)

But any other state can offer the top tier card, to its residents and non-residents alike.  Say that all “Gold” card holders will have to meet an onerous 99/100 qualifying score.  States would only compete on fees, testing centers, and hours.  Armored car companies will pressure the hoplophobic states to moderate the standardized criteria (training, testing, qualifications) but will endure the non-standardized impediments such as fees, training venues and hours.  Gun friendly states will moderate the competitive impediments that won’t be part of the standard.

The most ardent gun rights advocates will decry such a scheme as compromising a fundamental right—they don’t want to accept anything other than permit-less carry.  Why should a resident of Alaska concern himself with Young’s dilemma in Hawaii?  Alaska has permit-less carry; how often do Alaskans vacation in Hawaii? Senator Murkowski was rated A by the NRA. Are the most ardent among us advancing the cause?  Or are we just preserving the status quo?

The less ardent gun controllers will probably engage gun rights advocates in an endless series of court fights over the number of hours of training required, test questions, live fire qualification scores, availability of testing and qualification sites and dates. But this will be a longer war of attrition than the right-to-carry fight has been.

Ultimately, gun rights advocates will face a dilemma. If Congress or the Supreme Court federalizes interstate carry it will set a precedent in perpetuity. A later gun control Congress would be following precedent to regulate gun possession and carry according to some national standard, one which would cater to the sentiment of a national majority rather than majorities in the several states.

After National Reciprocity, gun controllers will need only the best Congress money can buy. So long as states retain the police power to regulate carry, gun control advocates have to continue fighting for regulation in the 50 state houses.

Strategic rights advocates should prefer some right to carry solution that is respectful of states’ rights. Any solution that clearly promotes even more responsible carry could prove the safest and fastest road to right to carry nationwide. A tiered set of qualifications that every state offers could be the straw that breaks the hoplophobes’ backs.

 

’MarkPA’ is trained in economics, a life-long gun owner, NRA Instructor and Massad Ayoob graduate. He is inspired by our inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and holds that having the means to defend oneself and one’s community is vital to securing them.

This article originally appeared at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission. 

comments

  1. avatar New Continental Army says:

    99/100? Why subject citizens to a more rigorous standard then any law enforcement agency and the military? Even “expert” in the army allows you two misses out of 40 if I remember correctly. Just to qualify is like 28.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      Good point Ad astra.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      Because these would be the states that don’t want anyone to carry. They’d set ridiculous requirements to discourage the plebes from trying in the first place.

  2. avatar Nanashi says:

    “The stage would now be set for the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling that only objective, shall-issue laws are Constitutional. ”

    That stage was set in 1999 with City of Chicago v. Morales, where the Supreme Court openly and directly said laws that required interpretation (and thus could be applied unevenly) were unconstitutional. It’s an interesting route to attack the NFA, which literally has a whole branch of a federal agency (ATF) exclusivly devoted to determining what the hell the law actually means.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      You just dispensed with 90% of the fed govt outside of DOD. No problem there with me.

      3% unemployment in the Trump economy would be a GREAT time for fed layoffs and letting the bastards find a REAL job. I’d certainly never hire a former fed deadbeat/”worker”.

      1. avatar DaveW says:

        As a “deadbeat fed” who is license by the USAF under the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (amended), who is 100% disabled, which is not to say I can not do anything, by Agent Orange, I take exception and resent your comment.

        When you paint an entire class of citizens, nearly all of which are pro 2A, it makes you a bigot. I worked my tail off for over 21 years, only to be struck down by Agent Orange in Vietnam, after my retirement.

        Upon retirement, I went back to college and got a degree in Administration of Justice (3.95 gpa) and was in line to be hired when the jobs froze up. Before they opened up again, I had my first heart attack. That was the end of the road for any kind of law enforcement occupation.

    2. avatar Scott says:

      That wasn’t exactly the holding in that case. City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a law cannot be so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence can not figure out what is innocent activity and what is illegal (per Wikipedia). Morales involved an anti-loitering law.

      Lots of laws require interpretation. That’s why courts exist, among other reasons.

  3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    No.

    No more promotion or facilitation of unconstitutional infringement of the right to bear arms. Participating in such schemes only serves to legitimize them.

    Enough.

    1. avatar Howdy1 says:

      Agreed and then some.

    2. avatar Michael Buley says:

      Agree, Chip. My first thought was, ‘Shall not infringe.’ This gives validity to regulating — infringing on — who can carry under what conditions. This is openly conceding the state’s already-illegal infringement of our rights.

    3. avatar Omer says:

      On the face I agree 100%. I just don’t think that’s going anywhere. As much as I’d love to see progressives’ heads explode, it took 80 years to get here, we ain’t going back in to that in one Supreme Court session, let alone 5 years. I’m for walking the unconstitutional regulations back, I’m for running them back, I’m for striking them down. I think the former is much more likely than the latter.

    4. avatar B.D. says:

      Agree. Not only should every state allow open carry, they should allow constitutional carry as well.

      Everything beyond that is an infringement.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        States should not allow anything, it is not up to them. VT has had it right all along.

    5. avatar CZJay says:

      If you give consent it’s not rape.

      I don’t consent. What you do from here on is a crime. I retain the right to self defense.

    6. avatar Warlocc says:

      The problem with this attitude is…

      Go to NJ or NY or CA or MA or half the states in the country and say “shall not be infringed!” when you’re caught carrying, see how that works for you.

      1. avatar Thomas J. says:

        It’s sad… but there are a lot of good people in those states who say “shall not be infringed” as well. It’s the few square miles of the major urban areas that ruin the entire state.

        1. avatar DaveW says:

          Thank you. I wish more people who pray for CA to sink beneath the ocean, and other rude comments would realize that there are a great many of us who have never quit fighting the progressives for our rights… and that includes a number of Dems. But, we live in rural CA. The voting blocks that get representation are in the major metropolitan zones, just as it is in places like NY. The rude comments we get appear to be from those who do not understand what we are up against. They seem to feel we just sit back and complain. Not so. We demonstrate, we write, we call, we email, we file law suits. Some days we are the pigeon and some days we are the statue. It ain’t fun being the defenders of the Alamo with all them Mexican soldiers surrounding us.

      2. avatar Pg2 says:

        Year in Walpole will cure “shall not be infringed”.

      3. avatar Ed says:

        Be like a person of color and demand to be served at a lunch counter.
        It is easy now, but more than fifty years ago it was difficult in many places in the United States.
        Abuse of authority by government was a common experience for those who framed the U.S. Constitution.

  4. avatar Moltar says:

    Nope…. It’ll be a shit storm. I don’t know exactly how the grizzly will rape the bunny but that poor bunny will be raped; repeatedly.

    1. avatar Dave in PTC says:

      I agree. But, where did you get the bear /rabbit analogy? Yikes! Not a pretty picture.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        demtard/goat analogy work better?

        1. avatar Dave in PTC says:

          That’s ok too. The bear/rabbit thing seems really accurate, I’ve just never heard that one .

        2. avatar Toni says:

          well the demtards do love them some muzzie

      2. avatar Moltar says:

        It just came to me. That and knowing the .gov’s penchant for f*cking up even the simplest wet dream taking a vastly more complex issue involving many more variables will play out terribly. Makes the analogy work very well especially if you can get a basic mental picture of a large Grizzly trying to pin down and ravage a fluffy bunny.

  5. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Naturally, I predict no national reciprocity and at best a very onerous process for “shall issue” in the current may/no issue jurisdictions. The rationale is based on history and the fact that when in power, the GOP doesn’t actually advance recognition of the right to bear arms through Congress. It’s a campaign thing. Sure, you’ll hear rumblings of such but nothing ever materializes. And if something significant were to get momentum (like the HPA for example) there will just be another mass shooting and it won’t be “the right time”. Passionate defense of the right to bear arms is reserved for when Democrats are in charge. Again, this is a useful campaign stump. It’s not even theoretically possible to have any big wins with Democrats having power.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Oh really? When was the last time the GOP had a supermajority of both houses and the White House? The reality is that for any bill to move, you need the punching party to have an overwhelming majority in both houses signed on to the bill.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Or you just need the minority to contain squishy Republicans (which is most of them). The Dems didn’t have a filibuster-proof majority for Obamacare, as I recall. They just kept hammering at it until they could pass it on a straight party-line vote.

        Republicans could do the same thing with the HPA or national reciprocity, but they don’t want to. They don’t dare. Of course it’s harder when you don’t have a global media machine giving you cover, but still…

  6. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    Thanks for the idea, but it seems unnecessarily complex. I have an NC CHP, which according to my understanding is the single most accepted CC permit in the country, accepted everywhere except in the usual suspect states, and equivalent to an NCIS check, at least for purchases in NC. It is already the “gold” card, except in places like NY, CA, HI, etc. If a newly invigorated Supreme Court invalidates “may issue” and other similar nonsense, would not the next logical step be to create a case where a “slave” state refuses to accept a valid permit from another state, and the Court could then rule, similar to drivers and now marriage licenses, that the offending state would have to accept the permit. This would mean national reciprocity whether NY etc. like it or not, just like interracial and gay marriage were more or less forced down the throats of many states that were not ready for them. Why not take the route of the blacks and gays? Clean and clear, with no additional groveling. This really is an “equal protection” issue, because just like a mixed race couple in times gone by, legal in one state is illegal in the next state. And if those states happen to be PA and NJ, or VA and MD, for example, you really can be arrested on one side of the line for something perfectly legal on the other side, and indeed protected by your shall-issue permit.

  7. avatar Mark N. says:

    The author does not understand the nature of the beast. Gunz are bad, m’kay? Citizens should not be allowed to carry in public, i.e., in any city or town anywhere in the United States. More gunz means more gun crime. (Find a big city police chief who doesn’t intone that mantra.) The antis will never accept national reciprocity under any standard that allows common citizens who are not police or security to carry gunz. Period.

    By the way, the top tier specified in the article is what is required in California, pretty much. “Training” (class and range time) up to 16 hours (a minimum of 8 after the first of the year, up to 16) and range qualification. But with all that, not one state recognizes a California CCW except con carry states where you usually don’t need one anyway.

    McConnell promised to revive the National Reciprocity bill after the mid-terms. By that, he means Cornyn’s bill, which is more restrictive than the House version. The House version requires recognition of both resident and nonresident permits, while the Cornyn bill only requires recognition of resident permits. (Of course, states can still chose to recognize any permit they want, this is just the minimum floor.) If Cornyn’s bill passes the Senate, then ti will have to conference committee to “iron out” the differences between the two bills, and if the Democrats take the House, then National Reciprocity is dead because a Democratic House will never pass another carry bill. Just listen to Pelosi crow about all the gun control bills she intends to pass “when” the Democrats become the majority–another carry bill will never make it to the floor. This is simply one of those “there is no possibility of compromise” issues.

  8. avatar Michael in AK says:

    The SC has NOT become conservative, you are hoping against hope that Kavanaugh will be any different than his predecessor. I hope I am wrong…..

    1. avatar Stateisevil says:

      I think you’re right. This Bush buddy and coauthor of the “Patriot Act” is no friend of ours. Not like Gorsuch for sure. But to the Trump fan boys Muh President is always right, even as he bans gun accessories by fatwah.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Still waiting for that ban to surface almost a year later…

        1. avatar Mad Max says:

          Must be getting close to the ban. The Wall Street Journal is sending out survey emails to the commenters

        2. avatar That One Guy says:

          Glad to see I wasn’t the only one who got one of those.

      2. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Never Trumpers still enraged Hillary lost. It’s ok. You’ll get a chance to vote for her again in 2020. She’ll be a cyborg by then but, you can count on her running.

        1. avatar Michael in AK says:

          Projecting much? I voted for trump, I just have read enough of Kavanaughs writings to know he is much closer to Anything Kennedy than Antonin Scalia.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Hillary is already running, she never stopped.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      I hope to be wrong also but I’m not counting on it.

    3. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Guess we’ll find out next year when SCOTUS starts making its rulings. That’s why they play the game.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      well,..he is pro-gun…how that manifests itself remains to be seen…

  9. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Way too much gobbledygook, would I prefer constitutional carry? Of course, it is bad enough that a license is required for carry in most states. If you have multiple levels of license there will be a strong likelihood of abuse.

    Eventually, I expect the courts will drag the slave states into compliance with the Constitution.

  10. avatar GS650G says:

    It would be nice to get rid of the onerous process in my state to get a permit which is expensive, time consuming and designed to discourage applying.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I lived for 50 years without a “permit”, even now I don’t need one, don’t want one, have no interest in paying for one because it will not help me in any way. If the people of my state wish me to take some training and tests, perform some tasks of some kind, related to my firearms, then the people of my state should pay the expenses for such activities, similar to jury duty, and guarantee my time off from work to comply. If we could just get that across, the whole house of cards would collapse, because, as you say, the intention is only to make firearm ownership more and more difficult and expensive in the hope of dissuading me from such ownership. If the taxpayer had to pay for it, politicians suggesting it would be promptly hung.

  11. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

    Sorry, but my Gold First Amendment Permit only allows me to post 50 words within a single day that will be visible nation wide, otherwise my response would have been longer. I guess I need pay the additional fee and upgrade to Platinum level. Yes, this idea is that stupid!!!

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      We should give Twitter the power to regulate gun ownership like they do their site.

  12. avatar TFred says:

    Sounds like an awful lot of words that turn a RIGHT into a permission slip.

    True gun-rights supporters would never accept this.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    Meh…write something better. Constitutional Carry for one.

  14. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    If indeed the Constitution is the supreme law of the land,then Constitutional carry is already legal and needs to be enforced, PERIOD, End of Bravo Sierra.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      But we got to do something!

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        Yep. Get Kavanaugh and friends to rule that Constitutional Carry is the law of the land.

  15. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Disclaimer: I only advocate for full-blown Constitutional carry, openly or concealed as the carrier deems best.

    If I were to back any sort of a tiered system, I would suggest a simple two-tier system providing for a “standard” and an “enhanced” carry license. The “standard” license would be good for general carry in the 40 states and the “enhanced” license should be good in all states and all venues (in other words no “gun-free” zones other than maybe court rooms and prisons).

    The “standard” license would require two hours of class time and two hours of range time which would consist of basic shooting at static targets at something like 7 feet (2 meters).

    The “enhanced” license would require an additional eight hours of training which would cover shooting at longer ranges (maybe 30 feet?), shoot-don’t shoot drills, and moving-and-shooting. All of those activities would require some sort of moderate level of control/accuracy to graduate/qualify.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I would rather go through the academy and acquire police powers. What’s the point of all that if you can’t drive fast, blow shit up and shoot the fuck out of people?

      Why miss out on this?

      Get SOME!!

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        I’m surprised the cat survived

        1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          Smaller than a dog. Probably why.

  16. avatar nick says:

    Im from New Jersey and let me tell you something. We may throw money at any bottomless pit we can find but our “elected officials” would gladdly abandon government funds to deny gun rights. They would do it with a smile and we will see who is stronger all while stating to the common folk that the reason the taxes are so high the schools are dilapidated the roads are basically craters is because the federal government wants to arm every tom dick harry and sue regardless of background (felons basically) and they would eat it up and be poor before they (nj) gave gin rights to any one but the elite and well connected.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      I agree with you, NJ is hard core and set in their ways. It would take federal troops to force change, just like school integration.

  17. avatar Higgs says:

    This is a reasoned though out proposal the comes across as sensible to most people.

    There is a huge flaw. It assumed the antis want to prevent the wrong people from getting guns. That is not the case. They don’t want any one to have guns.

    A system like this could be changed to prevent access to guns much the same way tests were given to prevent minorities from voting post civil war.

  18. avatar DoomGuy says:

    I’ll just leave this here:

  19. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Why are some gun owning people so eager to compromise with the enemy, when they know that “compromise” is surrender?

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Death before dishonor.

    2. avatar Warlocc says:

      Probably because we’ve already surrendered a long time ago, OFWGs slacked off when they were YFWGs and voted in idiots. Permission slips are required in most states. Now we gotta work our way back to constitutional carry, and “compromising” our way up to it is about our only real option.

    3. avatar Binder says:

      The whole point is to “compromise” to gain the support of the center, not the anti gun crowd.

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        When did this Right, become a popularity contest? A Right is a Right, and I don’t give a damn about how popular it is.

  20. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    National carry will be unacceptable if New York (7 bullet limit) or New Jersey (no JHP ammo) becomes the national standard. States like Kentucky will never support it. National reciprocity will only work if you have change to New York standards when you cross the border. And then back to Kentucky standards or when you return to a free state.

    There is no utopia.

    But if you make violating gun rights like race. Then make it a criminal offense. Now I can sue San Francisco and collect $$$millions. That will get their attention.

    1. avatar ATTAGReader says:

      As I noted earlier, I am not in favor of the postulated tiered system. If reciprocity were forced on states like NY, I would accept their stupid limits on the round count in the gun if I were ever in the state, so long as I could bring my regular magazines in without penalty. Two of my carry guns only hold 6 and 7 rounds, so they would be OK. Another holds up to 17. I would reluctantly only load it up to 7, so long as I could bring the 10 and 17 round magazines in. Why does this not bother me? Because it is like speed limits. Your driver’s license is good anywhere but you have to obey the local speed limits. You can drive that Porsche as fast as you want in Nevada (can you still do that?) but in NY you are limited to 65 mph. And you can drive the same Porsche as in Nevada.

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        I agree with your speed limit analogy. Even the person who wrote the national reciprocity law has used the speed limit analogy as an example for National reciprocity.

        Lot of people don’t understand that the 50 states are all Sovereign. They can do what they want within their own borders within certain limits. This goes back to the founding of the nation. I think a lot of folks forget that it was a compromise that allowed the 13 colonies to come together.

        The bottom line is Americans have always moved if they needed to find a better place to live. And yes I know there are some people that simply can’t do that because of economics. Or family reasons like caring for a loved one.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I do NOT agree with the speed limit analogy. When I drive my BMW into another state, I do not have to modify the car so that it won’t go faster than 70, or whatever the limit is in that state. The equivalent analogy is that in NY for example, I can only shoot somebody 7 times before I need to hesitate long enough to change mags/reload. But how many rounds are in my gun is none of your damn business, so long as they just sit there.

  21. avatar CZJay says:

    Hey, guys, I’m sure if we negotiate with the King he won’t chop our heads off for asking for some more liberty. Maybe we could pay him off on a regular basis so we won’t have to fight his men. It’s progress after all.

    I came up with a really good law about carrying weapons within the U.S.A. Here it is:

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    Tell me what you guys think. Should I have added a bunch of training requirements, fees, a class system, renewals, background checks, etc? Maybe I was too simple minded to think human’s have a natural right to make tools and use them when necessary. I guess I am as sophisticated as a 5th grader. Let me go ask the lords…

  22. avatar Bob Watson says:

    The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally enumerated right that is treated very differently in the various states. The solution is a convoluted scheme of permits, conditions and permissions constructed by the federal government and implemented very differently by the various states. That sounds like a winner to me.
    If we are going to adopt a system of Bronze, Silver and Gold permits to exercise our rights, we should, at the very least receive a $50.00 gift certificate for signing up for a Gold permit. A $200.00 Visa debit card would be in order if we bundle our paid right with a Dish TV 2-year contract.

    We should just forget all about expanding the number of states that have decriminalized carrying a concealed weapon by law abiding citizens. We no longer need to waste our time and money pursuing legal remedies in the federal courts when states choose to deny any citizen his/her rights. We absolutely must abandon all efforts to enact federal legislation that protects civil rights. Pretty colors are the answer.

  23. avatar Warlocc says:

    We already have too many hoops to jump through as is.
    Ideally the SC will simply rule that whatever license you have is good across all 50 states, same as driving and marriage.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Some dates only allow carry with certain types of pistol while other states let you go into schools with a gun. While traveling would you need to abide by these rules? Just another question.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        There have never been any “gun free zones”, we should stop pretending there are.

  24. avatar Sora says:

    If all states must recognize marriage licenses from all other states, regardless of the chromosomes of the people involved, or which cavity they are interested in, then 14th Amendment can be used for 2A rights in court, by a competent lawyer.
    Enough with all these senseless permits that are designed to appease.
    If we must take it to court, take it on the grounds of the constitutional rights.
    Don’t just try to apply 2A when you can use many other rights along with it.

  25. avatar Stinkeye says:

    The answer to the question posed in the headline is, simply, “No.” The authoritarian anti-rights (it ain’t just gun rights they’re coming after, you know) people won’t stop. Ever. No compromise will ever be enough. They’ll take whatever we concede and push for more. Every. Single. Time. Whatever requirements you set for whatever permitting scheme you come up with will just be a starting point for them, and over time they’ll push to make those requirements as onerous as possible.

  26. avatar J says:

    The Dems will just do a Supreme Court justice purge like Roosevelt tried to do during the depression to take over the Supreme Court. It is called stacking the Supreme Court or court packing. Here is how they wanted to do it by legislation in the form of the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. They could try this again if Trump does not win in 2020 or we loose both the House and the Senate. They do not want any one to have firearms or the Supreme Court over through any anti-2A state legislation that have been successful so far in restricting our 2nd Amendment rights.

    1. avatar ollie says:

      Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would be impeached and replaced by Obama, Garland and Holder.
      Ginsberg would be replaced by Maxine Waters.
      Roberts and Alito would be left on the court for “show”.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      I just love how the Left acts like their ideas somehow save democracy when it’s anything but .

    2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      Hmm… if ‘packing the court’ is the only way to ‘fix’ the problem then we should probably go ahead and do it now. I mean why wait until some unknown future date to implement this idea if this truly is the solution we need?

      Ask that of any leftist who supports this idea and then step back so you don’t get esploded-head-bits all over you.

  27. avatar Michael says:

    No way. Shall not be infringed is the line in the sand. No retreat, no surrender. Anything less is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Foxtrot-Kilo-Alpha. -30-

  28. avatar el Possum Guapo Standartenfuher " they think we're making pizza's Oberst von Burn says:

    Hears the deal, I’m no law breaker and I’m going to be armed. The laws make me a law breaker on that. If I can’t get a gun I will make some num chuck’s or get a gas pipe or a sharp piece of metal or a broken piece of glass. I do not like getting my ass kicked and waking up with pretty nurses attending my wounds( they sure look pretty when your wounded, them nurses do)

  29. avatar Keystonescout says:

    Nuts!

  30. avatar DoomGuy says:

    I guess pretty soon MarkPA is gonna start writing about how a “tiered system” for the licensing and ownership of “assault weapons” will be a good compromise too?

  31. avatar AaronW says:

    Interesting idea, and it sounds like it will take care of the anti-reciprocity crowd’s panic over “low permit standards” states, but it also doesn’t sound Constitutionally sounds, and I see opportunities for States to make those “gold and silver” permits hard to attain (high fees, “only open on the 1st blood moon of the year” permit departments, etc…)

  32. avatar GS650G says:

    How about we have tiered voting? Bronze gets to vote in local elections. Silver allows state. Gold goes for federal. The criteria will be arbitrary too.
    By carefully selecting voters the feds can run over everyone and take care of a small crowd .
    Maybe only rich people get gold voting. Minimum wage workers get bronze. Unemployed get zilch.
    As soon as rights are divided up it starts getting ugly.

  33. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    I like it. I like how you maneuvered the least gun friendly states into a position where they have to be at least a tiny bit more gun friendly.

    But…….. And it’s a big but…..

    There is one major problem with your plan and that is that it starts from the premise that any amount of gun control is acceptable. You are playing the game by their rules, you are accepting their idea that guns are bad and need to be controlled. By trying to play their game and find a way to beat them using their rules all you accomplish is negotiating a more comfortable jail cell.

    Having said that I do think your idea a good one and it’s something that we can use in our fight to restore our rights. Hold this idea up to the anti-gunners to give them something to focus on, distract them with it basically, while we work on retaking our all of our god-given rights including the right to self defense using whatever tool we deem necessary to protect our life, liberty, and pursuits of happiness.

  34. avatar Paul on Harsens Island says:

    Where can I get that flag?

  35. avatar rt66paul says:

    If you think we are limited because of state laws, just wait until the Feds get control – that is what they want and why our forefathers limited the Fed.

  36. avatar Frank says:

    In the immortal words of Nancy Reagan, just say NO.

  37. avatar pod says:

    Looks nice on paper, but there’s too many avenues for abuse.

    • Fees. Basic-bitch permit might be cheap but the upper levels might prove costly, by design.
    • Qualification standards. The upper levels might be onerous enough to give Jerry Miculek problems.

    Of course, in the end, as with a basic national reciprocity plan, we’re relying on the state and local governments to honor it.

    I only bring this up because of FOPA. FOPA supposedly guarantees peaceable journey through slave states. A guy with a normal AR who lives in Pennsylvania but wants to go shoot with his friends in New Hampshire takes the journey at his own risk. Sure, 99 times out of 100, the cops in NYS could care less, but there’s that one time where they decide they are gonna harass out-of-state plates for revenue, and then they pop our friend with the AR. He gets detained and his firearm is confiscated. FOPA could be invoked but that doesn’t mean he gets his gun back quickly.

  38. avatar Char says:

    No! The system is much to complex, it basically says that we need a permission slip to carry, finally it is in infringement on rights. Change the references to guns to speech and you would never stand for it.

    Another thing to consider, you want three levels, normally to advance a level you need the level below it. So just use easy figures, $200 for level one, $400 for level two and $600 for level three, that makes the permission slip $1200 to exercise a right. (and you would be required to maintain all three)

    Finally, let’s suppose the above but add a time requirement, you must have each level for 1 year to prove you are a good person. So it becomes 3 years before you can get the level 3. By then the level 1 is close to expiring and you have to begin the process all over again.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I think California has a “safe handgun roster” where guns are tested to be safe and paid to be on the list. The list expires, which means you have to pay again to stay on the list. If you don’t pay in time you get removed off the list regardless that your gun was already tested and found to be “safe” for sale. Now they require micro stamping to make it on the list, so when guns fall off the list they can’t get back on without the new requirements and more money. Essentially they force companies to pay for nothing every few years just to sell guns in the state of California.

      I heard that there is like 77 handguns on the roster. I could be wrong… We do know that the list is very small compared to a state that doesn’t have such restriction on commerce.

  39. avatar Ralph says:

    Tiered permits? Bronze, Gold . . . what comes next, Black and Blue?

    Can this sh!t get any more Byzantine?

  40. avatar Geoff says:

    The SCOTUS ruled the 2nd. applies to the States and I do not see a “but” or “except” after “shall not be infringed”.
    All gun laws since 1934 are unconstitutional. IMO.

  41. avatar Pg2 says:

    MarkPA likes to mix factoids and buzzwords, and while doing so he undermines the rights we are trying to protect.

  42. avatar ButtMunch says:

    The author is an educated idiot.

  43. avatar That One Guy says:

    Just as an aside…..Some states are still telling the federal government to fuck off on their Real ID Act. A federal carry license might not get any further.

    Oklahoma’s driver’s license system is more secure than what the feds want, but it’s still not compliant enough.

    I’m not sure Oklahoma will ever become compliant.

    1. avatar That One Guy says:

      doing a little more research, it looks like oklahoma might finally be getting on board, but there are still a lot of states that aren’t.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_ID_Act

      If the fed can’t get consensus on drivers’ licenses, gun licenses are almost a non-starter.

  44. avatar TIrod says:

    Looks good up front and all the good ol boys who like to get into measuring contests will support it – “My license is better than yours.”

    But all it does is add a tiered poll tax on citizens – and there will be states which demand Gold status only from everyone. It’s the same as requiring out of state drivers to earn a racing license and acceptance by NASCAR to drive in their state.

    It’s Not Going To Happen. States that require this are already exposed Constitutionally and it’s simply a matter of egotism on the part of elitist shooters to insist on it.

    BTW, 22 Reservist, Veteran, IN/ORD who served his last tour with a MP school cert and worked at GTMO. Not to mention any CCW I may or may not have – which completely ignored my Federal training and service. Fix that BS first. I’d like the $100 class fee and county licensing fees back, thank you, that was a real poll tax impeding my Constitutional Right to carry with actual monetary damages, all to demonstrate skill and education I’d already been paid to learn and exercise by YOU – the American taxpayer.

    Tiered systems are exactly what the anti gunners and liberals want to restrict our rights.

  45. avatar Lela Markham says:

    Is it a RIGHT to bear arms or a government-permitted PRIVILEGE? This writer seems to believe it’s a government-permitted privilege.

    Next we’ll be suggesting a three-tiered permitting system for freedom of speech or faith. Or how about a tiered system for the 4th Amendment?

    The thing about rights is that once the government starts regulating them, they are no longer rights and can be taken away at the whim of a bureaucrat.

  46. avatar Paul Hutsteiner says:

    More than a 50 per cent score should never be required : some guns are just not that accurate ( the really small ones that someone may actually carry) ; at night , under stress, the average person will just not shoot well — but you cannot deny him or her a right to self defense. And really, how often does it happen that a missed shot, fired in self defense does actually strike an innocent bystander?
    What should be focused on is the proper attitudes and knowledge of the laws so that the armed citizen can avoid using his or her firearm when it is not justified or in a really unsafe manner.

  47. avatar Oldshooter says:

    So what about states like TX, where an LTC has always required what you call the highest level? Would we have to develop lower levels too?

  48. avatar Mitch says:

    I like the author of this article am a “life long ” gun owner having purchased my first long gun in 1976. I remember the days in the state where I reside when you would pay a hard earned $35 to the county and the permit they issued would not be worth the paper it was printed on. In 2008 the law was changed around here to allow for a more generous carry options that include concealed carry. Operating in a country where fire arms licensing is regulated like paying your taxes is not a pleasant thought. I believe there needs to be some type of training component for fire arms owner ship . But a tiered system I cannot get on board with.

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