TexasCHLforum.com

Howdy!

I had a thought come to me and would like to see what others think of it.

National carry reciprocity is one of the larger gun rights goals at this time, but without a Supreme Court decision that carrying a firearm is a constitutional right, it seems that legislation is the only other option. However, in my opinion, any bill mandating that states respect other states' CC licensing would have quite a hard time passing.

So what if the legislature passed a shall-issue national permitting system with its own requirements and application? This permit would allow the license holder to carry in all 50 states and D.C. Of course, the license holder would be subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they are carrying.

Since the usual issue with CC reciprocity is differences in training requirements, the national permitting system could have its own course, training, and background check requirements.

Personally, I think that there shouldn't have to be a permitting system at all, but I would take a national permit if given the option.

So what do you all think of this idea? Would you apply for a national permit? What training requirements would you be open to? How would you feel about a permitting system at the federal level?

While I feel that the federal government would never pass anything like that, whether I would apply would determine on if it negates state permits, and how that would be handled. Since I rarely travel outside of Texas, I would rather just keep my Texas permit, since I am familiar with the regulations that come along with it. If the National permit actually did come to fruition, I think it would be VERY restricted to the point that you would be fine if you were caught carrying.

The government givith and the government taketh away. I am comfortable with the states handling this instead of handling it on the federal level. I dont want the feds in my business anymore than they already are. What would be next? Feds asking me how many guns I want to carry? Then makes, models, and serial numbers? Nay, I like it the way it is.

I would rather the feds stay out of this. They are in our business, personal and state, more than enough as it is now. Do we really want them telling us where, when, what and how to carry? Once the feds get involved....well you know, the hot place in a handbag thing.

The Federal Government is ONLY SUPPOSED to have jurisdiction over areas specifically stated in the Constitution.
All other powers are delegated to the few States or the People.

While "shall not be infringed" is apparently something neither the Feds or the States really understand, I'd rather the Feds stay out of that pond altogether. It's much easier to deal with government on a local level than one centralized way over yonder and suffering from input and influence of liberty-challenged Blue states on the coasts.

Just my opinion.

LabRat

I bet we could eventually think of something the Federal government has gotten involved in that hasn't been turned into an expensive pig's breakfast, if you give us a week.

I think it is a "state" issue and not a "federal" issue.

JALLEN wrote:I bet we could eventually think of something the Federal government has gotten involved in that hasn't been turned into an expensive pig's breakfast, if you give us a week.

jed wrote:

JALLEN wrote:I bet we could eventually think of something the Federal government has gotten involved in that hasn't been turned into an expensive pig's breakfast, if you give us a week.

I love this

I completely agree that the federal government should be as limited as possible, but one of the roles of the federal government is to manage and find solutions for issues that involve all of the states (the entire country). So let me clarify the question a little bit.

If the federal government was required to institute a shall-issue permitting system that did nothing more than issue permits (without any further regulation or power), and that system mirrored those of states like Texas or Utah, as opposed to those of California and New York, would you be interested in having a permit entirely separate of your Texas LTC, but which allowed you to carry in every jurisdiction of the U.S.?

ETA: You would not be affecting any state permits you already have, and you would only be carrying under that permit when in a state that did not respect any state permits you have.

TVegas wrote:I completely agree that the federal government should be as limited as possible, but one of the roles of the federal government is to manage and find solutions for issues that involve all of the states (the entire country). So let me clarify the question a little bit.

If the federal government was required to institute a shall-issue permitting system that did nothing more than issue permits (without any further regulation or power), and that system mirrored those of states like Texas or Utah, as opposed to those of California and New York, would you be interested in having a permit entirely separate of your Texas LTC, but which allowed you to carry in every jurisdiction of the U.S.?

ETA: You would not be affecting any state permits you already have, and you would only be carrying under that permit when in a state that did not respect any state permits you have.

And this would come from the same Federal Legislature that allows carry in the National parks but prohibits it on US Army Corps of Engineers' controlled land? I can have my concealed carry in Yellowstone (yes, I know - not the buildings) and not on the shore of Lake Grapevine.

I'm pretty sure Obama is going to sign an executive order giving all Americans the right to constitutional carry

Richbirdhunter wrote:I'm pretty sure Obama is going to sign an executive order giving all Americans the right to constitutional carry

loktite wrote:

Richbirdhunter wrote:I'm pretty sure Obama is going to sign an executive order giving all Americans the right to constitutional carry

quick! hold your breath, we can all be smuffs!

A really bad idea.