Universal Carry

mak1965

mak1965

Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2015
Messages
86
Reaction score
65
Location
Las Vegas
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.
 
Register to hide this ad
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
tops said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

TAROMAN said:
Never happen.
State's right's to approve or deny will prevail.
Just saying..
Click to expand...
And yet we all used 55MPH as the speed limit until the feds relaxed on the subject.

Muss Muggins said:
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 . . . ?
Click to expand...
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.

dougb1946 said:
If they can say yes they can say no. The Constitution made guns a states rights thing.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
13 lb. recoil springs Ed Brown or DPM?
Replies
7
Views
320
TigerDude
T
chief38
EDC comfort is often overlooked, made fun of and poo - poo'd. Sometimes people try in intimidate EDC-er's.
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
3K
A1Oni
A1Oni
Kiwi cop
Some Mothers Do Have Them
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
steelslaver
steelslaver
DARE
Glock 23 / S&W 37
Replies
16
Views
424
Valmet
Valmet
Smoke
What Constitutes "Reasonable Preparedness" ?
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
2K
old bear
old bear

Latest posts

Back
Top