So, one of the things I had heard during the election campaign, it that the new president would try to implement Universal Carry..
What are your thoughts about this? I think it is a great thing. But it wont go over so well with many states.

If he goes for reciprocity, I'm for it. If it entails a federal permit, not so much.

__________________
Eccentric old coot

Other states honor my drivers liscense, they should also honor my CCW liscense!
Getting the Feds involved with this type of liscensing, no thank you!

Never happen.
State's right's to approve or deny will prevail.
Just saying..

__________________
-jwk-
US Army '72-'95

Universal Carry is a tough call. This is mostly a concern for large cities which don't like out of towners hauling hog legs around, say to Times Square, getting into a dispute with "The Nekid Cowboy" and putting a cap into his kneecap, or maybe Minnie Mouse or Spiderman. Trump Plaza and Trump Tower could now be a concern as well. The New President actually live in NYC.

DITTO! Anything to keep the Feds out of it, I am for.

I'm in favor of state reciprocity, but not a federal permit. But I also think the possibility of that happening is slim-to-none. All you have to do is look at the state's that still have may-issue and/or are so heavily restricted as to practically have no carry rights to see who would put up a fight to keep it from happening.

I would actually prefer Constitutional Carry in all US states and territories, but I think that's even less likely to happen.

Since keeping and bearing arms is a right guaranteed by the federal constitution, I'm not sure why we'd want anyone other than the feds regulating it . . . ?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Hello, I to think there should be resprosity in all states. But will probably never happen. But we do have LEOSA for the retired and deserving few since 2004 and remodeled in 2014 that it made a lot easier when your retiring agency doesn't have any procedures for qualifying like me with the USCoast Guard. Now I qualify at a local range.
Hopefully our new president will get rid of gun free zones and fix the national carry situation.

__________________
NRA Life Member
CPO

If they can say yes they can say no. The Constitution made guns a states rights thing.

From what I'v read what Trump supports is reciprocity.
I still don't get why if all 50 states can honor each others' drivers licenses, why they can not agree to honor each others' carry permits.

The law says driving isn't even a right, it is a privilege, so shy can't reciprocity apply to something the Constitution acknowledges as a right?

Makes no sense to me....

If a State doesn't go along just cut off their federal money or send in troops. It's been done on other issues when a State or several States tried to buck the Federal Govt. Larry

No, it really didn't, but it has evolved that way, for whatever reason . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

No offense, but have you ever heard the term "political capital"?

Several states have adopted constitutional carry laws. If you're not a convicted felon, you can carry no permit necessary under your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That is my preference, and I have been a law enforcement officer for over 20 years. I prefer there to be as many armed honest citizens as possible. I have been in a tight sitaution before when a citizen came to my aid.

The political reality in this country is that when it comes to guns, a good federal government is one that considers private gun ownership none of its business. Anything beyond that is a pipe dream.

And a president with a long list of stuff to get done is not going to get into a fight against probably a majority of state governments, many of which, even if they philosophically agree on the issue, will resist federal preemption of what they see as states' rights as a matter of principle. This issue is unlikely to ever look important enough to pick that kind of fight.

I only wish I could carry my shotgun around and not have to depend on the peashooter on my hip. Already legal to carry one loaded in my truck, but you can't walk around with it.

__________________
Just a shooter

HR 923 is a step in the right direction. It requires a state to accept another state's concealed licenses. Even states without a license.

And yet we all used 55MPH as the speed limit until the feds relaxed on the subject.

The constitution was implemented to regulate the government, not us. The second amendment guarantees a right to bear arms, not a right to be regulated by the government.

No, the constitution guarantees an individual's right. It doesn't grant the power to a state to regulate guns.

Alas, we have gun laws because WE have allowed it.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

You can't equate carry permits with driver's licenses.

In every state, you have to pass a test, both written and on the road to get your drivers license.

While in some states you have to get some kind of certification in order to carry, in other states, like PA, nothing is needed except a having a clean record. So states that require some kind of certification are not going to like people from states that do not have the same requirement, carrying in their state.

Of course, reciprocity could be made Federal, but those states with the certification requirements are going to put up a fight.

I would think it would be a hard sell in the "blue" states. Most of them want more firearms restrictions.
Lawyers are guaranteed to make $$$ from the arguments.

You're right. Owning and carrying a gun is a right. Driving is not.

We don't need reciprocity. We need to actually decide that the constitution is the law of the land and quit letting the elite tell us what we can and cannot do regardless of the law.

For now I'll take reciprocity.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I found this humorous because we have the opposite situation in Washington State. Our hunting laws make it illegal to have a loaded hunting gun in a vehicle. In practice, excepting LEOs & military, that law is applied to all long guns anywhere. However, we've never had a state law prohibiting open carry and state firearms law preempts county and city laws. The largest newspaper in Bremerton recently ran a front page story on a 30 something year old man who routinely walks his wife through the city with a loaded simi-auto rifle over his shoulder. While I do not want to restart whipping the open carry dead horse it is legal here. It's also humorous that in this "blue state" open carry was not worth mentioning for a century.

On a related topic, not too long ago our hunting or concealed weapon laws were changed to allow hunters to carry concealed self defense handguns. Prior to the change, while big game hunters carrying .22 rimfire handguns for grouse & rabbits was accepted a game warden could cite the hunter for any center fire pistol that was not legal for taking the game he had a tag for.

Now I return the thread to the original topic on which I am no expert.

As much as we would like some type of an agreement between the states for conceal carry I seriously doubt that can be accomplished !! And in my opinion a federal law would be the only way that it could be done .. I can't see all 50 states agreeing on a law between themselves at a state level .. I say this because of the huge difference in the laws now on the books between the states ..
those laws would first have to be much narrower in their differences between them before that can be accomplished !!

So a federal law would be the only chance I believe some type of reciprocity can be accomplished successfully !!

The thing is, Federal law, nor the office of the POTUS is some magic wand where the President just get everything he said he wants, before or after the election. He only executes law.

The law would have to be written in Congress. A Congress that includes many of the states that wouldn't want this, and many members of Congress that wouldn't want this to happen. President Obama's party had more seats in the Senate when he was sworn in than President-elect Trump's party will have when he takes office. Many of those in his party are far more hostile to him as well.

I'd want to see an actual bill I could read the details in. That's where the Devil resides..in the details. We lost the right to build transferable machine guns in the "Firearms Owner's Protection Act", signed by a Republican President. The first AW ban was by a Republican President. President-elect Trump is a deal-maker. That's his claim to fame. Don't think for a second that he would hesitate to give something up for something he deems more important. His posturing now is "The Art of the Deal" in action. He's setting up his bargaining position on everything.

As long as we get some pro-gun folks in the Supreme Court, we'll be doing great. To me, that's what this election was all about.

Frankly, I think universal carry permits are a pipe dream.

Since I am not a lawyer, I am not smart enough to interpret ALL the laws. In the following primer on State's rights vs Fed's rights - This is the beginning paragraph: "The question of how power should be divided between the federal government and the states is really what American politics has been all about for well over two centuries.  It is a question debated by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, debated by Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the ratification period, and debated between and within our political parties ever since.  Elections have been won and lost on this question, and a Civil War fought over it."

All I know is that I hesitate to give the Feds any more say in my daily life than they already have.


The Question of State's Rights and The U. S. Consitution: American Federalism Considered

You mean the States and cities that backed the wrong horse?

You mean the states and cities where a deceived, misled, and intentionally manipulated urban populace is used to overwhelm the rural and suburban electorate? Cities and states where the legislative process and judicial checks have been cast aside in order to disenfranchise entire populations?

You guys that push that line need to wake up. The money'd liberals that no longer want to live in the states they ruined are coming to your neck of the woods next, drawn by your low tax rates and cheap land.

Dragging yourself to the polls every two to four years ain't enough. You've gotta vote in your local elections. And that means every local election. Judgeships, school board elections, sheriffs, municipals--it all matters.

And mindlessly punching (R) isn't enough. If you think the Republican candidate is your buddy just because he's a Republican, you're sorely mistaken. You gotta declare a party so you can vote in the primaries. And if the party backs some shlub that uses cutesie phrases like "supporting the rights of sportsmen", you gotta let them know, with a vote for a real Second Amendment candidate, and a letter tossed in for good measure. If a Dem comes along with a strong 2A record, and the Republican's a schmuck, you gotta cross the line if gun rights are really your #1 issue. And if you want clueless Republican party elites to listen to you, you might have to get totally radical, and waddle yourself down to the local Party meetings and volunteer to do some campaign work. These people, as a group, do not truly give a warm cup of spit about you--so long as they know they don't have to worry about your vote. It's a lot harder for them to live under that illusion when a bunch of single-issue-voting gun owners are active in their party. If they know that backing a dead fish for state senate is gonna cost them a bunch of volunteers and votes up and down the ticket, they'll listen.

Remember--it only takes one day, one moment of weakness, for your rights to get sold out from under you. This is a war of attrition. Any ground you lose this year won't be retaken next year. You lose it now, it's gone forever. The enemies of your rights are perfectly happy to slowly win over forty or fifty years. We need to commit to not taking a single step back, on anything, ever. And we need to back candidates that will do the same.

A National Reciprocity Law has been introduced into Congress nearly every session for quite a while. It has nothing to do with who was voted into the Presidency, it's been a grass roots effort.

It usually fails by a very slim margin which shrinks further. It's been missed by a few votes lately. Strangely enough the Hearing Protection Act is getting more attention right now, when we have been pushing National Reciprocity far longer.

What does it mean to the anti gun states? Politically, a lot. Realistically, what we have now is a system of PRIVILEGE, where one citizen's rights are protected and recognized, yet another citizen's are deplored, and restricted.

I can holster up and drive from MO to SC with no issues, completely legal, but if I head north and enter NJ, I could be arrested? Do you consider that a right a proper exercise of the 2A? Same with the west coast, it's been the situation where someone in a legal capacity carrying a CCW entering CA being arrested on discovery because there is no reciprocity.

Their status as a sworn law enforcement officer, serving or retired, only points out how wrong the situation is. In the CA event, it was an LEO - the incident occurred over ten years ago. Me? Nobody special - I served in the US military in the MOS of an MP but it was trained, not by 201 file declaration. And in MO that means NO slack for paying the fees.

And yet to hear it from some, I'm not to be trusted on the same block in NYC with Trump Tower. As if I might go rogue and start shooting innocent people? It's been said before, it's not the anti gunners who are slowing down progress, it's ourselves. Some simply cannot accept that a certificate of demonstrated self discipline isn't needed - I could point to a number of arguable shoots in the recent news, or that the one illegal use of a legal full auto weapon was by a police officer.

Let's not start throwing stones in glass houses.

LEO certification serving or retired isn't a valid exercise of the 2A if other have their rights restricted.

Saying that a guy from MO who can CCW, or Open Carry, and who can possess daggers and switchblades, but who can't in another state, just points out how uneven and difficult weapons laws are. It doesn't JUSTIFY them by saying "state's rights" when in point of fact that has been used by some to keep certain people from voting - ie poll taxes. CCW fees and training are no different - the system is set up to exclude by socio-economic means, if you can't afford to pay you can't play.

It's been in the courts before and it's unconstitutional A state passing some kind of test can be proven a form of discrimination. It is exactly the same problem we faced with May Issue and Shall Issue. That took 20 years to overcome and it's really just a few states from being completed.

But, no, we have to allow it in those few because State's Rights? I differ - the CITIZEN comes first, those touting the State as having superior rights over you or me are just supporting the views of statists. If you believe the State can infringe on your inalienable rights, then you agree with what CA, CO, CT, NY, NJ, and MA are doing.

What we need is to force them to stop doing it - because your rights and my rights supercede States Rights.

I live in California an I'm fortunate enough to have a concealed carry permit . But to receive one you have to ask permission from numerous Goverment officials have 2 backgrounds done one to by the gun one to get the permit and possibly interview with neighbors .
I don't know of Anyother constitutional right that we have to ask the Goverments permission to exercise . We don't need permission to go to church to start a news paper to speak freely . Why do we allow control of the 2A it has got to be looked at as a privlage in this state not a right .
Also I think a national reciprocity on concealed carry permits would allow people to get permits from other states when their local Goverment won't issue them one because the Goverment official doesn't think you need one

I have thoughts both ways on this. Nevrr-the-less I am not looking for it to happen any time soon, if at all.

__________________
I Cor. 10:13 "1611KJV"

I have carried legally in S.C. since 1976. I hate having to have a CWP to carry. We are over 300K now my number is 1xxx. Have been told by those who are supposed to know this could be lowest active number. Most below are either dead or didn't renew. While I only travel away into other states infrequently it would be nice to know I could. My wife went for her Utah permit and can now carry in about 38 states. She recently went on a road trip with one of her cop girlfriends and they went heeled everywhere they went. Right up to the Liberty Bell in Philly. Constitutional Carry....just sounds right.

Funny that this is still a question!

QUESTION: Should Trump sign a National Concealed Carry Law?

I and one other person voted NO.........all others voted YES.

Hmmm....can I be that wrong?? Never!! We do not need the feds getting involved in this, a State issue.

YES! - Pissed Off Patriots | Facebook

This pretty much sums it up ^^^.

The states are all voluntary signatories to an interstate drivers' license compact. Same princlple as the interstate agreements on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and uniform traffic laws. It's not that hard to agree that "go" lights should all be green and "stop" lights should be red, no matter where you are.

In other words, the states CAN agree, but they have so far chosen not to with regard to uniform CCW reciprocity. Given the diversity in state approaches, it is unlikely that they all could agree--some would be adding restrictions if they did so. IMHO I would rather live in a country where the states can refuse than in one where the federal government can compel in every case.

__________________
de minimus non curat lex

It seems "law of the land" is just so shot full of holes that I doubt we will see gun reciprocity take place.

Not 100% certain, but I seem to recall learning in the college communist-taught political science classes that The Constitution of the United States overrides state constitutions whenever it states a position. Otherwise the state has power. The second amendment states a right which the states cannot deny, however several states deny that right.

OK, so can the federal government FORCE the states to comply? If so, how do they do that? Like someone said above, they could send in federal troops. What would that really accomplish, the overthrow of state regimes?

So, anyone have any realistic ideas as to how to get the states to enforce the US Constitution if their "rulers" don't want to?

I like the idea of national reciprocity, but I'm wary of federal intrusion on states rights. That said, the notion that NY needs to fear tourists with carry permits coming to town and causing trouble is insulting. They don't do it at home and they wont do it there. If anything CCW's tend to avoid confrontation. Big cities would do better to worry about their own "Illegal carriers" than responsibly armed visitors.

It took 12 years to get the LEOSA passed, allowing current and retired LEOs to carry nationwide but the law is full of restrictions and pitfalls.

The blue states will fight it tooth-and-nail. I think we would have a better chance of universal carry if the Supreme throws out gun registration requirements as infringing on 2nd Amendment rights. Even a gun-friendly Supreme Court is not likely to go that far.

We haven't even colonized the moon yet, so universal carry seems a bit premature

The Supreme Court has ruled twice on the 2nd amendment in the last decade and they are unlikely to revisit the issue again anytime soon. In both cases they have stated that 'the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to own guns but state and local governments may enact "reasonable restrictions"' (paraphrasing). That may be as good as it's going to get for us at the federal level for the foreseeable future.

I'd rather let the states decide and choose my travels accordingly. Don't say the word "regulate" too loud inside the Beltway. You may get just that.

I could not say it any better than this article did. Great read - read it all. Here is the conclusion: "I’ll freely admit that I’ll take advantage of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 when it becomes law, but it will be a bittersweet moment, as it is one more unconstitutional federal gun law that I don’t believe the Founders wanted to exist."
The Good and Bad Of The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

This is the problem. There is a valid argument from individual states that the federal government is usurping their right to impose restrictions and qualifications as the states see fit.

"What part of 'Shall not be infringed" don't you understand?., is not a valid response. SCOTUS has made it clear that states may legislate some restrictions and requirements on permit holders and applicants.

The issue would be someone from a very gun friendly state, like AL, traveling to almost impossible to obtain New York City and carrying concealed there.

The answer to that is some sort of federal handgun licensing requirements or process. Which, IMHO, is a cure worse than the disease.

I will say that if it happens, I hope it includes not only the 50 states, but all territories as well. There is no reason that US citizens that live in US territories should be treated as lessor citizens.

At least IMHO.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

I disagree. There is at least one "shall issue versus may issue" case out there. Peruta is currently being smothered by the 9th CA because they voted for an en banc review and have done nothing with it.

The Madigan case out of IL came close, but the anti gun forces convinced the state NOT to appeal the 7th CA decision that Heller requires issuance of permits to carry. (I think it was Heller they CA relied upon, but it's been a couple of years since I've read the case).

Anyway, no matter which way Peruta is decided, if the 9th CA ever does decide it, the losing side will petition SCOTUS for cert.

SCOTUS has denied a number of petitions during the past 8 years, but in general has denied them. I suspect that the reason it denied cert was that neither side of the Court knew which way it would decide and no one wanted to risk losing.

That's just a guess.

If the new President gets to appoint two new Justices, that might change. Assuming of course that the next Justice to retire is a liberal and a the replacement will change the balance of the court.

__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.

States don't have the Right to infringe in the first place. SMH?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 14th Amendment makes it clear the 2A applies to States as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I shortened this to focus on the issue.

The Constitution DOES NOT give citizens the RIGHT to bear arms. They are BORN with that RIGHT.

The Constitution tells the Government what it is allowed to do.

2A clearly tells the Government it cannot infringe the Right that its Citizens already were BIRN with.


I understand you support Citizens bearing arms, but please understand that even you have been affected by those who have done a great job of confusing the issue, by incorrectly understanding and talking about the Constitution.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk