Universal Concealed Carry Permit


PDA






Pietro Beretta
March 5, 2013, 11:06 PM
I was just reading about how Nevada is no longer honoring Arizona conceal permits.

A reply to one of those threads suggested a universal concealed carry permit.

What would you be comfortable with for the "minimum" requirements of such a universal permit - the way it seems, states wont honor others states permits if the state that issues it has less requirements than they do.

(Of course Oregon doesn't recognize out of state permits - which is why I also have my Washington state permit)

If you enjoyed reading about "Universal Concealed Carry Permit" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bushmaster1313
March 5, 2013, 11:11 PM
How about this:

Pass a universal background check and you get to carry in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Pietro Beretta
March 5, 2013, 11:16 PM
Took a second to get the poll up - sorry about that. :)

788Ham
March 5, 2013, 11:22 PM
You hit the nail on the head bushmaster ! Good for all, or none!

Pietro Beretta
March 5, 2013, 11:31 PM
I almost view licensing as necessary if there were to ever be universal concealed carry - the same way a license is required to drive a vehicle on "public" roads. Then, there would probably be some kind of insurance required for financial liability.

Twiki357
March 5, 2013, 11:39 PM
Do you REALLY want the feds (ATF, FBI, Homeland Security... then accessible by HHS, CDC, and god only know what other agencies) to have all that info on who does/does not have a permit and the authority to grant or deny a constitutional right?

I would much rather have universal mandatory recognition of all state issued permits?

LemmyCaution
March 5, 2013, 11:46 PM
Sure. The requirements for universal concealed carry should be no more stringent than those for the state of Vermont.

Bobson
March 5, 2013, 11:46 PM
I believe any form of licensing is a compromise on our part, and constitutional carry should be the goal in every state. That being said, if a license were an absolute must, I wouldn't have a problem with requiring fingerprints, photo, background check, and a safety class.

The only problem with requiring a level of training is one can only arbitrarily declare the point at which enough training is "enough to carry."

22-rimfire
March 5, 2013, 11:48 PM
I absolutely do not want the Federal Government getting involved in issuing carry permits. It is bad enough that the States do it.

TN is one of the better states for reciprocity due to the fact that we have to take a firearms safety class (8 hr), shoot (with a score), demonstrate safe handling of a firearm, get finger printed and get the background check done prior to being issued a carry permit. Some states do not want to grant reciprocity to other states that have laws that are more lax than their own. That's why some states that seem to be pro-carry states do not honor or want to honor selected out of state permits.

Personally I thought the TN approach a bit much at the time, but I thought the class informative, the shooting a waste of time, and the wait time a bit excessive. But once your finished with it... the renewals are easy.

SouthernBoy
March 5, 2013, 11:49 PM
That would require that the federal government get involved in this and believe, that is the LAST thing we want happening with carry permits or carrying arms under any circumstances. They have already violated the Bill of Rights and the Constitution way beyond what they're allowed to do. You don't want them having anything to do with this.

blakeci
March 6, 2013, 12:00 AM
while it seems like a nice thing to have universal carry, one must remember that right now, if some politicians in a state decide to restrict/ban conceal carry, one could always move to another state..

but if it is a federal carry license, what do you do if they decide to restrict/ban it? I really don't feel comfortable having all my eggs in one basket...

Alaska444
March 6, 2013, 12:22 AM
No keep it at the state level and let the chips fall where they will. The Feds should have no hand in CCW at all. Just MHO.

481
March 6, 2013, 12:35 AM
Another for keeping Uncle Sugar outta the CCW permit/license biz.

Better off without 'em...

Risky
March 6, 2013, 01:42 AM
No keep it at the state level and let the chips fall where they will. The Feds should have no hand in CCW at all. Just MHO.
I agree. It will be abused and used as a way for the Federal government to 'peek through the blinds' on American gun owners. For those of you that do a whole lot of interstate travel I understand that its a pain... but for the most part, states that don't recognize many other states' permits usually have non-resident permits or recognize another state that issues non-resident permits.

CapnMac
March 6, 2013, 02:37 AM
To my thinking, the limit of Federal involvement ought to be in the form of:

"The States shall endeavor to create as universal a set of regulations as the people of the several States see fit to be caused to be enacted."

Yes, nothing in there says word one about guns. Neither hardware stores, fruit plants, business licenses, wombat breeding, traffic regulation, the whole lot of if.

I also realize that making CFR about one page long, and getting USC into only 2-3 Volumes would kick over a whole bunch of fedgov rice bowls. I do not have a cure for that. Some could be set to patrolling US borders, and others set to collecting excise & customs (yeah, I'd repeal the 16th amendment, too).

But, your CHL ought to be like your DL--no need to go and look up if you can drive to Illinois, and then have to double check for within chicagoland, too. But, the agency issuing ought be no further than one's State capitol at the maximum. But, that's me an my clinger ways, too, I suspect.

Deus Machina
March 6, 2013, 04:06 AM
Another for the background check.

I'm all for constitutional carry, but how many departments are actually going to allow that without hassling legal owners to make sure they're actually legal and not a threat? If they find out for whatever reason.

I'm not against requiring training, but it's tough to tell them where to quit. I think it's a great idea just to have a class to teach the legalities, make sure you can handle a gun without shooting anyone else, and then a background check gets you a card just so you can flash it and avoid the hassle of an officer running your info through a computer if they find out for some reason.

Overall: Hi, NICS? John Smith. Not restricted? Cool, here's a card and a holster.

AlbertH
March 6, 2013, 06:09 AM
Unfortunately many misinterpret Universal Carry with Standardized Carry Requirements.

I have a question for those of you who are have a paranoia about our government, What are you doing posting here and why are still on the grid. Each computer, laptop, ipad, web phone, has a mac address,an IP address and unless you actually remove the battery that GPS chip is always sending out a signal and each leads right back to you regardless of what name you may choose to use. Once that message hits the grid, it is there forever and for all to see.

To those of you who complain that they cannot use their non resident permit to carry in many other states, where is your resident permit.

To the residents of states that find that their resident permits are not nationally recognized. Take the time to look and see how much easier it is to acquire your permit than those in other states.

There are still three states that are unrestricted at all, Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont. I suppose you could always move there.

The fact is there is not a standardized set of requirements for a concealed carry permit and thus the restrictions on which states your permit may or may not be valid. Obviously there is a reason for this. It is because the requirements need to obtain that concealed carry permit vary so much.

Many of these requirements for a concealed carry permit have been challenged in the courts over the years, yet they still stand and therefor proven constitutional.

Instead of continually fighting a losing battle by trying to get states to abandon their concealed carry requirements, maybe it is time for you to fight for standardized set of requirements so once you get that resident concealed carry permit, it is reciprocal in all the other states. WELL MAYBE NOT ILLINOIS. :-)

AlbertH
March 6, 2013, 06:14 AM
Sure. The requirements for universal concealed carry should be no more stringent than those for the state of Vermont.
Ain't gonna happen.. The concealed carry requirements have been around in other states for a long while and most likely challenged in the courts over the years but since they still stand must have proven to be constitutional.

PRM
March 6, 2013, 08:00 AM
We've already got one...its called the 2nd Amendment. What needs to be done, is vote the politicians out of Washington who either can't read or won't follow it!!!

Gregaw
March 6, 2013, 08:03 AM
"Universal", huh? Does that mean I could carry on the moon?

I'm not for any federal regulation on concealed carry. It will always fall to the lowest common denominator.

sleepyone
March 6, 2013, 08:20 AM
My first choice is no licensing. My second choice is each state should be able to make its own laws. 10th amendment. I want federal oversight to be as minimal as possible.

AlbertH
March 6, 2013, 08:23 AM
"Universal", huh? Does that mean I could carry on the moon?

I'm not for any federal regulation on concealed carry. It will always fall to the lowest common denominator.
Standardized requirements does not have to entail federal regulation.

Every state has a process and a set of requirements that must be met in order to acquire a concealed weapons permit already in play and have been that way for years. Some states have more requirements than others and the ones that do have more requirements also have more states that will accept that concealed permit in leu of their own for visitors.

Regardless of the way you may feel, those laws have passed the 2nd amendment constitutionality test otherwise they would have been tossed out years ago.

It is time to start using your energy to change your own states requirements for a concealed weapons permit so it is accepted by every other state.

If you chose not to take an effort to update your own states requirements then at least show others that you are indeed a responsible gun owner and either shy away from states that do not accept your concealed carry permit or abide by their state laws..

rodinal220
March 6, 2013, 08:52 AM
Universal Concealed Carry Permit


Amendment II


"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."

vba
March 6, 2013, 08:55 AM
"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"...

All of the above except the last is an infringement.

Oh, rodinal got there before me.

beatledog7
March 6, 2013, 09:04 AM
Regardless of the way you may feel, those laws have passed the 2nd amendment constitutionality test otherwise they would have been tossed out years ago.

Having passed muster with the activist SCOTUS doesn't make these laws truly "Constitutional." To say that would be to say that at any given moment, on any given topic, 5 unelected people in black robes can dictate to the rest of us how it will be, and we're ok with that. Though I grant that we have rolled over to that concept for decades, we need to roll back on it.

No, such a law would be unconstitutional, just like all the rest.

Outlaw Man
March 6, 2013, 09:11 AM
If we were to tell Congress that we're giving them the authority to legislate in regards to firearms, do you think that they'll play nice? The Constitution doesn't grant them that power, and look how much they've already done. I shudder to think what they'd do if they had the whole country say it's ok.

AlbertH
March 6, 2013, 09:14 AM
Universal Concealed Carry Permit


Amendment II


"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."
Article 1 section 7 of the U S CONSTITUTION,

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such
Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the
States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

sorry but since it it is part of the original constitution, it sets how a militia shall be set up or should the state choose to set the rules, the constitution allows it.

Regardless of what you may feel, the US CONSTITUTION is more than just the 2nd amendment... Even though many say that the second amendment is the constitution, with out the rest, THERE IS NO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA but instead nothing more than a lawless land.

ZeSpectre
March 6, 2013, 09:21 AM
There was a time when the careless and irresponsible served as an example to others...frequently by way of headlines and often posthumously.

I'm willing to let that be my "required test for carry".

MErl
March 6, 2013, 09:25 AM
I voted for the third option but would prefer to see the fingerprint part be dropped from all the options. It isn't needed and just gets tossed into the database in case your print comes up at a crime.

Live fire should be a part of the requirement. It may be the only time people carrying the gun ever fire one...

The other half of going through a check like this would be carry anywhere unless there are hardened entrances with security.

ASCTLC
March 6, 2013, 09:45 AM
The problem with considering such questions is they tend to overlook how the details of the laws expand in very undesireable ways. These laws tend to be abused by those who simply don't agree with the people's wishes.

The "standard" may start out innocent enough with a background check and a little training, but when the next shooting occurs, they'll add finger printing, then they'll add annual mental psych evals, then they'll simply suspend the right while they "review their current policies"...

At least at the state level, as pointed out by others, we can move when necessary. The fewer people we designate to manage something for us the more tempted those same few think we're asking them to think for us.

Andy

Deanimator
March 6, 2013, 09:45 AM
We should be pushing back against the other side, HARD.

Demand nationwide Constitutional carry, and MAYBE compromise on national reciprocity.

Let the other side argue that women are too "hysterical" to know when they're being "legitimately" raped, or to carry firearms.

AlbertH
March 6, 2013, 09:55 AM
Finger printing other than DNA printing, and in some cases dental records is the only way to permanently identify a person. With today's technology and printers, any image on any license, passport, or for that matter any official document can be altered, fabricated, and even stolen.. Identity theft is one thing that will change your attitude, when it comes to your personal rights to unfettered freedom, should you ever have it happen to you.

So you want a concealed weapons permit, you know that you are a fine upstanding citizen who has never been in trouble with the law, you fill out the application, give it to your police, they do a criminal background check and lo and behold you are listed as a wanted fugitive because someone stole your identity. What do you do. Your fingerprints have never been provided to the FBI so how do you prove that the wanted fugitive is not YOU?

I know first hand about identity theft, and although my case wasn't this serious, my identity was stolen, and it pretty much took an act of god to get it resolved.

Al

buck460XVR
March 6, 2013, 10:01 AM
I already need a license to CWC in my state........not a big deal and I do not feel infringed. No different than the license I need to drive a car. But like my drivers license, I feel CWC permits/licenses should continue to be issued by the state, by methods they deem necessary, but automatically recognized by all other states.


so..........I did not vote.

joecil
March 6, 2013, 10:06 AM
I got my first CCW permit in Florida when they first started it in the early 80's there. In my case it was simply issued by the Sheriff's office by asking for it with a need. Now I moved to Lexington from Florida and actually forgot about it and when I decided I was going to stay, I applied however my Florida license had expired 7 months prior so I had to take the class, live fire, background check and got the Kentucky CCDW within about 4 weeks. I have never taken a finger print for a CCW permit but then I've had my finger prints taken a couple of times since I have had several FBI background checks for various jobs in the past. So for me though I knew all of the gun related parts required however the laws of Kentucky I didn't so the class was worth the 8 hours it took to get through it. My wife who had never had a CCW got hers pretty much the same way as I did here in Kentucky about 6 months after I did.

CoRoMo
March 6, 2013, 10:13 AM
What would you be comfortable with for the "minimum" requirements...
The Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont models look good as far as 'minimum requirements'. Wyoming's model is a little too restrictive in my opinion.
...states wont honor others states permits if the state that issues it has less requirements than they do.
The problem is not fixed by increasing requirements in all states so that the least free states are more comfortable with the most free states. The problem is solved by fighting each state's restrictions down to Constitutional carry.

rodinal220
March 6, 2013, 10:16 AM
The problem with the whole CCW permit/license systems is that they are being treated as a drivers license and not an individual liberty.Look what Colorado is doing,they are going to take away carrying on Colleges and Universities.
Current thinking is to come up with a CCW Compact between the states just like many,but not all belong to the DL Compact .

Careful what you wish for.

45crittergitter
April 1, 2013, 04:19 PM
How about instead of a government permission slip, a federal constitution with a written guarantee of our rights which no government may violate?

sleepyone
April 1, 2013, 04:25 PM
I'm with those who say the 2nd Amendment already covers UCC. "The right to keep (on my person, in my house, in my car, etc..) and bear arms shall not be infringed" by any local, state, federal or international government.

c4v3man
April 1, 2013, 04:32 PM
All you need to carry should be proof of citizenship, just like what voting should require.

AK103K
April 1, 2013, 06:41 PM
Whats scary here is, this is a "gun board", and there are actually votes in the first three categories.

Kevin Rohrer
April 1, 2013, 06:48 PM
Any "law" that restrict a Constitutional right is an unjust law. And a law that give one an ability that already exists thru the Constitution is asinine. :cuss:

If you enjoyed reading about "Universal Concealed Carry Permit" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!