National Reciprocity ***Standards?***

[scott.ballard]

Hello,

Reading through the thread about the plausibility of eliminating CCWs in their entirety made me wonder about this:

Assuming we all can stand on the same field as a united front, is it likely we will be able to push national reciprocity through without standardization of the training, screening and demonstration of proficiency requirements?

Would standardizing the the process for all 50 states be a concession we could bear?

How much is too much when it comes to concessions?  I live in a Shall Issue state and really don't want some draconian process imposed upon me.  However, is it likely we will ever see national reciprocity without concession?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Stay Safe,

[fightingquaker13]

Hello,

Reading through the thread about the plausibility of eliminating CCWs in their entirety made me wonder about this:

Assuming we all can stand on the same field as a united front, is it likely we will be able to push national reciprocity through without standardization of the training, screening and demonstration of proficiency requirements?

Would standardizing the the process for all 50 states be a concession we could bear?

How much is too much when it comes to concessions?  I live in a Shall Issue state and really don't want some draconian process imposed upon me.  However, is it likely we will ever see national reciprocity without concession?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Stay Safe,

See, this where I get hung up. Its not as though I don't have principles, as my critics will suggest. Its that I have too many on this issue and they conflict with one another. On the one hand "The right of the people to keep and bar arms shall not be infringed" is pretty damn clear. On the other, I do support states rghts vs Federal preemption. So, here we have it. Do you support the right of state (as expressed through the peoples' represenaitives the legislature) to define the terms  of what "The right to keep and bear arms" means on the ground, via laws, rules and court precedent, or would you prefer that the feds do it? On the one hand, you get different gun laws in Ca. v Al., On the other, you get a Court imposed set of rules that fails to satisfy either the antis or us. The one thing pro-life and pro- choice folks can agree on is that Roe and Casey left a lot to be desired, and damn sure didn't settle the agument.  I'm not sure the Court will do better on this one.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

 Never vote to limit Freedom. The smallest thing you give up with out a fight is a bargaining chip you do not have later .
Also, in many states it is not a matter of "Federal Pre-Emption" (which would be proper ) as the same or similar clauses are in State Constitution's as well.
In the States that DON'T have it the Feds would be justified because they are duty bound to protect your Federal Gun rights

[TAB]

we don't even have a national standard for what is and is not a felony.


There is not a single member of this forum that has not commited a felony at some point in thier life.  Chances are they didn't even know they did it.

[Timothy]

Ignoring TAB's stupid remarks....

I've carried in five states and am currently licensed in three.  Back in the day, we could carry openly on the streets of Northern California as well as in the state of MI.  Granted this was the seventies but there was no blood running in the streets then any more than there is now.  There was also no concealed carry laws.

Basic safety courses would be probably required but there are those in the industry that believe that responsible carry requires more training than that minimum.  I would venture that most of the proponents of that training are those that make a living teaching it!

Personally, I've been trained by the best, my father and my Uncle Sam!  The other courses I've been required to take in MI, CT and MA were essentially a way for someone to take 50 or 100 bucks from me and sign a document.  Useless!

We can get there, but who's going to set the standard?  If the Feds do it, it won't work, remember the whore house analogy?

No easy answers...

[Sponsor]

[Rastus]

Tab, those of us not from California aren't smart enough to know that making your own flower beds and home repairs by yourself without illegal Mexican help is a felony.....   

In Oklahoma the course focused on 1) what is imminent danger, 2) what specific carry laws are and 3) just a few minutes to make certain you don't shoot yourself in the foot each and every time you load and fire a weapon.

What I envision as a standard would be each state to publish what their standards are to shoot...what is imminent danger and next where/how to carry in their state.  Carry law quirks like....you can carry in your car when driving in a school to pick someone up or meet someone but you cannot leave the vehicle vs. some places where that is a no-no.  Some places allow you to carry in a bar, some do not allow where alcohol is served making restaurants off-limits, others where I live allow you to carry in a restaurant but not in the "bar section" where minors are not allowed.

The biggest Federal standard would be enforcing the 2nd Ammendment by saying concealed carry is legal without a permit.

[r_w]

Even

The biggest Federal standard would be enforcing the 2nd Ammendment by saying concealed carry is legal without a permit.

And a HUGE loss of states rights.  I started out on the side of national reciprocity, but the more I thought about it the less I like it. 

[MikeBjerum]

Even
And a HUGE loss of states rights.  I started out on the side of national reciprocity, but the more I thought about it the less I like it. 

In the spirit of the Second Amendment, national security is more important than states' rights.  Does a state have the right to opt out of military involvement, including the draft?

[Solus]

States Rights have survived national Driver's License Reciprocity.  And, contrary to much popular opinion, driving is a Right and not a privilege, simply because the Government doesn't have any privileges to hand out to The People.

If we can manage with Driver's License Reciprocity, we can do the same with Concealed Carry Licensees.

[ericire12]

States Rights have survived national Driver's License Reciprocity.  And, contrary to much popular opinion, driving is a Right and not a privilege, simply because the Government doesn't have any privileges to hand out to The People.

If we can manage with Driver's License Reciprocity, we can do the same with Concealed Carry Licensees.

But you are comparing apples and oranges..... Guns are way more dangerous then cars The regulating of who has a gun in a public place is far more important then who is behind the wheel of a car Think of all those little kids that are killed each year by guns. That could never be compared to cars Besides, think of the inconvenience that it would create if we didnt let drivers licenses be recipricol accross state lines and didnt hand them out to illegals and hormone crazed teenagers with no driving experience what so ever Come on, its for the children


I yield the floor to Tom Bogan