I agree a "federal" concealed carry permit has pitfalls. One would be that it would exist at the whim of each new administration or congressional majority.

But the issuance of a "Federal" permit hasn't been the idea behind proposed national carry bills.

Instead, those bills have promoted the idea of having common federal standards for permits and a federal requirement for an appropriately issued state permit to be honored in all 50 states - or at least in all states that offer concealed carry permits. (Although I'd personally prefer the Fed flex it's muscles and extend shall issue concealed carry permits as a requirement for all states as an application of the second amendment).

It's the same as the expectation that a state issued VDL be honored in all 50 states - at least until the visitor becomes a resident, and then it's just an administrative process to trade the out of state VDL for an in-state VDL.

It's also similar to the concept used in sharing UI wage data, where the federal government develops the overarching agreement that states then sign to allow the process to happen. It's legitimate role for the federal government to take in coordinating interstate activities.

To make that happen however, there would have to be agreement on permit requirements, such as a finger print based back ground check, a mental health back ground check (just a check for prior involuntary committals in the state), classroom training in firearm safety and the use of deadly force, was well as range training and a qualification component.

There would be some debate over the number of classroom hours and rounds fired in training, qualification courses, etc, but in general those elements would effectively meet the most rigorous permit requirements in states that issue permits on a shall issue basis.

The payoff would be not just increased reciprocity, but automatic reciprocity.

It is however one of those issues that causes problems for conservatives. On the one hand, it's promoting a conservative value of greater freedom in exercising 2A rights. On the other hand it's infringing on the conservative value of states' rights - specifically the right of a state to decide not to allow concealed carry.

Despite Republican majorities in both houses, it hasn't happened, and it hasn't happened in large part due to the conflicting "conservative" values, augmented by the concerns of constituents in various states that they'd face more rigorous requirements for a permit that met a common federal standard (and presumably might not qualify for one).

That's unfortunate as one permit does not preclude the other. For example, SD for example has a basic permit that requires a $10 fee, a basic back ground check and 2-3 days for the local sheriffs office to process it. SD also has an enhanced permit with a $100 fee, training requirements and a minimum 98 round live fire training requirement intended to get broader reciprocity, particularly, with surrounding states who have more stringent back ground and training requirements.

A common federal standards permit could be handled the same way, with states offering their own basic permit, and an "enhanced" federal compliant permit.