Universal concealed carry reciprocity in the US

[quoss]

NObody is more aware of the average guy's incompetence with a gun than me, guys,. I have taught this stuff for almost 45 years now. But if you let the gov't determine who can carry, when and where, and what they must do to have that "right", then you set the stage for the gov't to say that nobody can,or that a given class of people cannot, etc. If I had my way, you'd have to demonstrate extreme skill and knowledge of the law, or you couldn't drive, vote, marry, have contracts enforced, etc. 99% of SWAT guys couldn't pass the level I'd like to see enforced, actually.

[Mack Knife]

The issue of CCW reciprocity across states invites a federal level mandate to allow it. Were that to happen, things working the way they do, there would also be a minimum training requirement (actually not a bad idea) and then also a firearms registration requirement since many states require that the CCW covers only identified firearms. That creates a problem for many, a quasi national firearms ownership registry. While some would go along with that, many would not and that would sink the whole thing.

Why a CCW doesn't work in the same manner as a driver license (you can drive any motor vehicle in the class for which the license is issued) is another story. Given that the operational characteristics of revolvers is different from semi-autos it could be that the CCW would also need to be classification specific with tests and training specific to each type. While that could be accomplished, the registration part would remain and since national gun registration is one of the trigger points of resistance (no pun intended) the noise level would get high pretty quick. Of course, the national CCW would be voluntary so that could mitigate some of the resistance to such a thing. Carrying a concealed firearm is a choice having been disconnected with the right to own the firearm in the first place.

Many pro-gun organizations suffer from the same politics as found in other areas. There are the very vocal extremes that say any form of requirement beyond the right to bear arms is an infringement. This becomes apparent in many public discourses where the fanatic statements and examples are used to support firearms ownership rights.

How often do we hear things like "guns don't kill people..." and while that is true, even arguing that insults the intelligence of just about anyone. What happens is that statement becomes the focal point instead of the real issue. The better response to gun control efforts isn't statements like that, everyone knows guns don't kill people just as cars don't kill people unless you drive a GM or Toyota. The gun control people know that all they have to do is say a few things and someone will throw up that tired old statement and try to argue the point. The thing is, it is a trap and so often, pro gun ownership folks fall right into it and from that point on, no one takes them seriously anymore.

Where is the push, the initiative or the example of a required training system for those wanting to exercise those things beyond the right to bear arms? You can own a motor vehicle without having a driver license in some places, you just can't drive it on a public roadway or public lands.

National CCW reciprocity stands a far better chance if a minimum standard for training and competency testing were included. I doubt there will ever be such a thing unless at a minimum, opt-in registration for the firearms covered by the CCW is included. I don't agree with registration but then there is a reality to getting something and the alternative is to get nothing, the tide isn't going to change to allow for nation wide CCW reciprocity without registration.

It is a slippery slope and one that will always be seen as infringement one way or the other. Absent the defining court case, which if after all these years no one has brought forth it is unlikely that it will now and time isn't the friend here, a national reciprocity right isn't on the horizon.

[Gungnir]

Originally Posted by jwkilgore

I also fully agree that the overwhelmingly vast majority of carry permit holders are law-abiding citizens. I've used that argument myself when advocating for fewer restrictions on where a permit holder may carry.

But I still maintain that, before being allowed to carry a deadly weapon in public, especially a ranged weapon like a firearm, a law-abiding person should be required to undergo training on at least basic gun handling and on when the use of deadly force is legal. My biggest gun-rights fear is that some obliviot sees someone who looks like a [insert stereotypical bad guy here], pulls a gun, and starts panic firing in a crowd. Or someone is confronted by an actual bad guy, pulls a gun, and fires a few "warning shots" that fall into a crowd of grade-schoolers on a field trip three blocks over. I know several people who, while they have the right to defend themselves, their panicky nature and general overblown opinion of their own rights makes me want to keep them as far away from guns as possible. Their ignorance of the law could create momentum in the anti-gun community and cause me to lose my rights.

I acknowledge that no amount of training will fully eliminate all gun accidents (cops shoot innocent people even with all their training), but going with the percentages, a little knowledge goes a long way.

Just to comment on this.

Do you think that expressing an opinion that certain people may panic and act in a way in which they abuse the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, is good for your gun ownership rights?

Now that said, would a large proportion of gun owners who hold this opinion, and move to enact something that is mandatory, be good for gun ownership, or bad for gun ownership? Let's just put on a Devils Advocate hat here.

Originally Posted by Devils Advocate

If you are expressing an opinion that you as a gun owner do not feel comfortable with the majority of people owning and carrying firearms without mandatory training, then it would make sense for there to be a national permitting system with constraints on who can and cannot own firearms, which would apply to everyone (because I don't know you, or trust you to act responsibly with a firearm). So we should have a national system where only trained, assessed, registered and permitted owners should have firearms. Anyone who is not registered and permitted will have all firearms confiscated, fined no more than $100,000 and imprisoned for no more than 10 years. We'd implement a tax on all firearm and ammunition sales to cover the cost of the national training program and registration database

Now compare and contrast with, you personally accepting responsibility not only for yourself, but also a level of responsibility for your community (the gun owning community) and educating where you feel it is necessary. Sure it's voluntary, and sure it's not always easy (but responsibilities often are not easy to maintain), but isn't that preferable? For instance I've always told people that there are 4 stages of self defense, and the act of defending yourself is contained within stage 3, stage 4 is being cleared of all charges associated with stage 3 and going off half-cocked in stage 3 will lead to you failing in stage 4.

Originally Posted by jwkilgore

[Back on topic...]
One of the problems with national reciprocity is the vast difference between states in the way they handle weapon carry. Yes, there are large differences between state driving laws where reciprocity is the norm, but there are MASSIVE differences between different states' carry laws. If you can carry without a license in AK, does that mean that AK residents may carry everywhere without a license? Some states with very lax laws allow non-residents to obtain licenses. TN already recognizes other states' licenses, but not for TN residents (TN residents have to get an in-state license to carry in TN). Would national registration require that TN recognize the FL license used by a TN resident, or, now that ALL states allow carry in some form or another, would national registration eliminate non-citizen registration altogether?

Which is why I'm kind of reticent about it. Best case is your state of residence laws apply in all 49 other states. Worst case is that concealed carry laws are elevated to the Federal level and the Federal government issues national concealed carry permits, and that these are the only permits that allow for concealed carry (i.e. we get uniformity of concealed carry that is managed by the Federal Government). It's a bit like the old yarn about wishes from the Genie, you get what you ask for, but you might not get what you want.

[Mack Knife]

Laws and regulations are almost always the result of those who have the responsibility for doing the right things and liability for not doing them and failing to do the former and when faced with the latter, not paying attention.

If someone wants to start a gun control group or association, money floods in, behind the scenes influential people get involved.

If someone wants to start a pro-gun ownership group or association, the first thing they are asked is to is donate to the NRA.

[An Einnseanair]

Originally Posted by Devils Advocate

If you are expressing an opinion that you as a gun owner do not feel comfortable with the majority of people owning and carrying firearms without mandatory training, then it would make sense for there to be a national permitting system with constraints on who can and cannot own firearms, which would apply to everyone (because I don't know you, or trust you to act responsibly with a firearm). So we should have a national system where only trained, assessed, registered and permitted owners should have firearms. Anyone who is not registered and permitted will have all firearms confiscated, fined no more than $100,000 and imprisoned for no more than 10 years. We'd implement a tax on all firearm and ammunition sales to cover the cost of the national training program and registration database

I see Mr. Advocate is a fan of the straw man variation of the reductio ad absurdum tactic in debate. The right to own firearms is a fundamental right for all citizens who have not given up their rights by criminal acts. Bearing arms on your private property (and on other private property where allowed) is also a fundamental right for all US citizens. I would even argue that your vehicle should be construed as an extension of your property, so you may be armed without a license when driving down a public road or on private property that otherwise doesn't allow firearms (i.e., in the drop-off line at your kids' school). I also believe that limitations on the type of firearm are often ridiculous, especially when the outlawed types are only cosmetically or superficially different from legal types (Ruger Mini-14 Ranch vs. a Mini-14 Tactical; or a 7-rd mag vs an 8-rd mag). Nothing I have stated thus far requires registration or licensing of any kind.

But I am still of the opinion that people should be required to demonstrate competency before being allowed to operate devices in public capable of harming large numbers of people. This includes both vehicles and weapons. Neither national registration, confiscation, hefty fines, nor prison time for simply owning a gun follow from this opinion.

I also believe that once licensed (with class, background check, and fingerprints on file), carry permit holders should be able to carry anywhere and everywhere except on private property where prohibited. Yes, this includes schools, courthouses, churches, bars, etc. And just like operating a vehicle while intoxicated is illegal, drinking while packing should be illegal; so you may carry into a bar if you want, but you may not drink alcohol while armed.

Originally Posted by Gungir

Which is why I'm kind of reticent about it. Best case is your state of residence laws apply in all 49 other states. Worst case is that concealed carry laws are elevated to the Federal level and the Federal government issues national concealed carry permits, and that these are the only permits that allow for concealed carry (i.e. we get uniformity of concealed carry that is managed by the Federal Government). It's a bit like the old yarn about wishes from the Genie, you get what you ask for, but you might not get what you want.

The best case above is what the national reciprocity advocates want. Any license from any state (even a non-resident license) would allow you to carry in all 50 states, just like a driving license. And just like driving laws, you'd have to learn and follow the carry laws of every state you visit. Texting while driving is legal in some states, illegal in others. Some states allow open carry but not concealed, some states allow concealed carry but not open. Some states allow carry into bars, some do not.

The ultimate question is whether the feds would stop there. Would a federal mandate requiring reciprocity (probably including "model law" language suggesting minimum requirements for state licenses), open the door for a federal license, followed by federal registration, followed by confiscation? I don't know.

Anyway, I doubt it'll ever pass. The anti-gun types will fight against it because they see it as loosening gun laws. The extreme pro-gun types will fight against it because they're afraid of opening the door for the feds.

[Gungnir]

Of course Mr Advocate is a big fan of the straw man, and reductio ad absurdum, however lets keep in mind that both do have their uses for exposing logical flaws.

Originally Posted by jwkilgore

But I am still of the opinion that people should be required to demonstrate competency before being allowed to operate devices in public capable of harming large numbers of people. This includes both vehicles and weapons. Neither national registration, confiscation, hefty fines, nor prison time for simply owning a gun follow from this opinion.

The issue is that the logical flaw of this is that you must prohibit everyone from operating devices in public capable of harming large numbers of people, before permitting those who can demonstrate the competency to do so, that is the only rational way to create the system, i.e. if you're not recorded as competent, you're assumed to be incompetent. Is this in agreement with the 2nd Amendment? If not then are we going to accept that disagreement? If we accept one disagreement, why not more?

Let's also discuss the flaw of possession on private property, if the intent is to increase safety, then most people live on property that if they can possess a firearm, can harm people who live close by (some small arms have demonstrated kill ranges of 2700+ yards). I'm lucky, in that I have a 1000 yard range out front, not everyone is so lucky, but then not everyone has the acreage to do that. So if we permit those people to possess devices that can cause harm beyond their properties borders, then would we not also require those people to also be required to demonstrate competency in the same way as carrying in public, if the intent is to increase public safety? If we require persons to demonstrate competency on their own property, then why should I be different because I own more land? I might be on my land at the easement, and shooting across into my neighbors, which may well be the same distance as any typical suburban development.

Now with both those points, can you see any potential for erosion of rights?

Now on the Universal concealed carry, I agree that there is probably little chance of it passing. However if there is some politician who is smart and patient (I know an oxymoron), they might be able to convince enough people to back a bill that gives people what they are asking for, but not what they want. Then at the same time still leave the door open to further changes that mesh better with that politicians personal or constituencies position.