Federal License to Carry?

C

cp2146

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Messages
111
Reaction score
65
Location
North Central Texas
I heard a little snipet on the news the other day about a move afoot to adopt a federal license to carry that would be good anywhere and everywhere. I just heard it in passing and didn't hear any details. I realize something like this would probably never pass congress, let alone be signed into law, given our current political environment and gun control arguments underway, but it makes sense. I also realize there are some states and local municipalities that would likely never accept it. Personally, I think it's a good idea...one federal carry permit that covers the entire country. Then you could eliminate the plethora of state and local rules governing (translated as prohibiting) licensed carry. Does this make sense to anyone else?
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
In my humble opinion, it's a bad idea.

1. The power to issue such a license also gives the power to not only take it away, but to confiscate your guns, assuming a future anti-rights administration.

2. You would then be in a very special federal database - and rest assured that database would include everything about you, from how many guns you own to where you normally eat your lunch.

3. You would not be a "good guy," you would only be someone who would be under special governmental scrutiny.

4. Asking the Federal Government's permission to carry a gun flies in the face of states' rights. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal Government given such power.

5. Far better that we have universal Constitutional carry. The first step in getting there is having state concealed carry permits universally accepted, just like drivers' licenses. Once that has been done, the road is paved for UCC.

Just my opinion. YMD.

John
 
It does or would make sense to those of us on forums such as these.
Right now, the criteria seems to, basically, be a current LEO or retired LEO after a minimum of 10 years of service.
There are some other details.
Here is more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

For anybody non-LEO, the bureaucracy gets even greater with several states and agencies in which to coordinate. I'd strongly consider a state which easily approves concealed carry and which provides enough interest to leave me content enough to stay, and not want to travel outside of that state.
 
Having worked for the Feds for 27 years and then worked with firearms training and education since, I think it is a wonderful dream that our Federal Govt work the way it should, but a monstrous political trap if it were implemented, resulting in permits being issued about like now in New Jersey.

There is no Federal driver's license, and there is no law requiring states to recognize each other's drivers licenses: they worked that out on their own.

The only reason your state carry license is not good everywhere is the anti-gun attitude of about 10 states, the same states that would most certainly make a Federal license program a restrictive nightmare.
 
It seems like a good idea in theory. If you still have your state license or permit in addition to a fed one, then if the feds take theirs away you're right back where you are now, so not much worry there.

If it were an 'instead of' deal then hell no.

"Let me be clear, if you like your current carry license you can keep your current carry license." :rolleyes:
 
This will never, ever happen, under any administration. The states will view this as a states' right issue and so do I. If you give the Federal government the power to tell the states they SHALL honor a weapons carry permit, then you have also given them the power to revoke that authority on a whim and deny everyone the right to concealed carry. Is that what we want?
 
At first I fully agreed with idea of ONE permit that covered all the variances of the different states. But today I was reading my current NRA magazine about some of the proposed changes Social Security is think to assure benefit receivers that are "mental unfit" would automatically be denied the right to purchase a firearm. Sound logical at first then I read the NRA objection which shed new light.

First the Fed determines who is unfit by their definition.

2 any error done prior is classifying an "unfit" is their option to hear and/or change. The citizen has NO due process of normal legal systems.

3 It becomes a Federal Social Security administrative process and their option to change, restrict or place addition limitations on is not subject to legislation.

Assessment: Have you every seen the Federal government do anything right.

This post will probably place me on some "problem list" with big brother
 
OKFC05 said:
The only reason your state carry license is not good everywhere is the anti-gun attitude of about 10 states, the same states that would most certainly make a Federal license program a restrictive nightmare.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree.

You may have a concealed carry license for your state, and my state of North Carolina may recognize that license. That's called reciprocity. That doesn't mean, though, that just because we recognize your license, you're absolved from obeying North Carolina's firearms laws.

What might be legal ways and places for you to carry in your state, might not be legal here. You might can carry in a court house out there in Oklahoma for all I know. Don't try that here.

It has nothing to do with being anti-gun.

I wouldn't be so quick to label other states (or people) as "anti-gun" simply because they don't look at gun laws or their enforcement exactly like Oklahoma does.

A federal license would be a nightmare...for more reasons than I feel like talking about right now. I'd advise average gun owners to be careful what they wish for.

People can talk about and wish for a federal carry license and/or national reciprocity or whatever you want to call it for everyone until they're blue in the face. They can wear out keyboards talking about it on forums just like this one.

It ain't gonna happen.

If wishes were horses, we'd all be ridin'.
 
CATI1835 said:
If you give the Federal government the power to tell the states they SHALL honor a weapons carry permit, then you have also given them the power to revoke that authority on a whim and deny everyone the right to concealed carry.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, why did you default to believing that you would have to give up your state carry license in order to get a federal one?

I guess I see a federal license (if there were such a thing) as an accessory to my current WA CPL. If the feds want to impose training and qualification and it wasn't outrageously expensive I would consider jumping those hoops. It would be nice to be able to carry anywhere I travel and WA doesn't reciprocate with very many states. If the feds revoke it then I'm back to where I am now.
 
Last edited:
WATCHDOG said:
I respectfully disagree.

What might be legal ways and places for you to carry in your state, might not be legal here. You might can carry in a court house out there in Oklahoma for all I know. Don't try that here.

It has nothing to do with being anti-gun.

I wouldn't be so quick to label other states (or people) as "anti-gun" simply because they don't look at gun laws or their enforcement exactly like Oklahoma does.
Click to expand...

Of course you have to follow the laws of the host state; that is not an issue.

You missed the point of my post.

I am talking about the about 10 states like HI, NJ, NY, MD, etc that are MAY ISSUE, and the average person simply CANNOT GET a carry permit, while the political connected can. Aside from the high probabililty that they collectively would prevent any Fed carry license, they would undoubtedly cram it with restrictions, and possibly even IGNORE it, such as NYC and NJ now IGNORE the Federal Firearm Owners Protection Act. On appeal a Federal Court recently upheld the NJ case that negated the FOPA in NJ. Several locations (like MD, DC) now only honor the FOPA if the wheels are turning, but NOT if you stop for any reason. People are being puled over, vehicle searched, and arrested for transporting in accordance with the FOPA, the state simply ignoring the Fed FOPA. What would stop these same states ignoring a Fed Carry License law?

My post had nothing to do with the comments you made and you criticism that I should not call states "anti gun" is entirely irrelevant. States that deny the right to Keep and Bear arms to the average citizen are anti gun.
 
Last edited:
There will be no Federal full carry permits as long as NY,NJ, Conn,Ill,Calif,Mass,and a few others are still in the Union. They will fight it tooth and nail and they hold all the cards(votes). That being said, I think that constitutional carry should be the law of the land. We have it here in Arizona, the anti-gunners cried there will be blood in the streets,the only place I see blood running in the streets is Wash D.C. and Chicago.
 
The original 2A effected only the federal govt. States could do what they wanted. Founding fathers saw guns as a counterbalance to an over reaching federal government-one where money was speech and corporations were persons. One where there was a dept of Homeland Security and a Patriots Act. One where super PACs could run an election, and one where there was a 1% with over 90% of the wealth.
 
Last edited:
We already have a national carry law: the Second Amendment. Article VI paragraph 2 declares that the United States Constitution the supreme law of the land. No state has authority to abridge the rights guaranteed to us by the United States Constitution. No law is valid that contradicts the United States Constitution.

We've screwed up the second we're bought in to the spurious bull sugar that our rights to bear arms can be abridged.
 
P-229 said:
We already have a national carry law: the Second Amendment. Article VI paragraph 2 declares that the United States Constitution the supreme law of the land. No state has authority to abridge the rights guaranteed to us by the United States Constitution. No law is valid that contradicts the United States Constitution.

We've screwed up the second we're bought in to the spurious bull sugar that our rights to bear arms can be abridged.
Click to expand...

I think clearly that ship has sailed . . .
 
dougb1946 said:
and one where there was a 1% with over 90% of the wealth.
Click to expand...

Bit of thread-drift here.....but the 1% with 90% of the wealth is a situation you find in every country and every governmental system , be it a democracy/republic, socialist/communist, monarchy/dictatorship.

Socialist/communist the upper members of the ruling party are the 1%. In a monarchy/dictatorship the ruling family and associates are the 1%. In a democracy/republic it can be entrepreneurs and their families (Sam Walton family, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, etc..).

The main difference is that in a democracy/republic anyone with hard work and ingenuity has the opportunity to better themselves and perhaps become part of the 1%.

Don
 
Thanks everyone. Great points, all. Of course this is something that will never happen because there are too many anti-gunners holding political office at the state and federal level. Besides, as someone said, this is the federal government we are talking about. They do tend to screw up most things they get involved in. Yes, I know we have the 2A and that it is supposed to be the ultimate law of the land, but we all know that it is under a major attack right now. In a perfect world, it would be nice to have just one carry permit with a uniform set of requirements and rules that all states had to recognize and abide by. But again, too many anti-gunners on the loose to ever let something like that come about, especially since they are trying as hard as they can to do away with the 2A and/or anything having to do with lawful gun ownership and carry. Was just a thought.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top