What about a National CCW option?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keltyke

I also have a basic right to not be accidentally shot by someone's stupid mishandling or careless shooting. As my Daddy used to say, "My right to throw a punch ends where your nose begins." ADs can happen to anyone - but does a little extra training and instruction hurt? Frankly, I'm proud of my handgun handling knowledge and my scores on the written and practical part of the SC CWP course. It proves I know what I'm doing.

---

You completely miss the point. The idea is not to minimize or do away with the need for training but rather to not have a situation where the fed sets mandates and controls as conditions for obtaining your carry permit. That's just a fast track to creating nation wide California with regard to concealed carry rights. Good grief...we may as well give Mayor Bloomberg the job of overseeing the nations concealed carry requirements. No sir. That New York "gold standard" smacks too much of gun control for my liking.

Hey, great idea, National CCW License. Let's see who should write it up? I know who. The same guys that write up most of the other stuff in Congress, the guys and gals from Illinois, NYC, California and Washington, D.C. They could draft it based on their experience with gun permits in their states! I know they would protect our 2dA rights, just like they do for the home folks.

If you want the same no permit for average citizens type permits that they have in those states, go for a National Permit. They will be the power brokers in Congress and they will draft the bill!

Leave permits to the states. I can always move to another state, leaving the country is not so appealing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommonMan101

We already have a National Permit.

All these regs and such need to go away. To save myself the headache of trying to put it into words that everyone can understand I'll let Ted speak for me:

Ted Nugent: “I believe that a person's moral compass can be determined by how he references free men the right to defend themselves. The second amendment is so obvious to me, its insane that there is an argument. Let’s pretend there is no document. Let’s pretend brave families didn’t leave the tyrants and slave drivers of Europe, so that they could practice the religion of their choice, they could speak out without being murdered, that they could produce wool without the King’s men coming and taking it from them every season of harvest. Lets pretend none of this happened. Lets just pretend that this guy named Ted Nugent, parachuted down to earth and woke up one morning and saw all of these wonderful resources and had dreams of excellence and being the best that I could be. I don’t need a document and I don’t need another man to explain to me that I have the right to defend my gift of life. And that there is an argument in America from Hilary Clinton, from Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, from a whole gaggle of numbnuts, who would try to tell me they will dictate where how and if, I can defend myself. I find that preposterous, I find that unacceptable and I will not accept it. I am a free man, DON’T Tread on Me, a good law abiding citizen, not convicted of a felony. The 2nd amendment of our bill of rights is my concealed weapons permit. PERIOD. That’s it.

-------------
Stop the insanity! You're giving the grabbers what they want by playing on their field of "control" with this permit stuff! You've already given in to the idea of gun control now it's just a matter of how much and how far until it's all gone.

Keep
It
Simple
Sweetie!

---

COMPLETELY AGREE!

To the original poster, YOU Sir, are part of the problem. There should be no requirement that we need a permit to perform and act that is guaranteed to us in our Constitution.

I'm sorry that you feel that the Government, the same organization that couldn't get water to the Super Dome for 5 days after Katrina, the same organization that has screwed up nearly every single thing it has gotten a hold of, is in some way needed to deem who is worthy of being ALLOWED to exercise a GOD given RIGHT. I really am sorry that you believe this because it demonstrates how deeply the vein of thought goes that believes that we need the government to look out for us. We do not. The government is in every instance a hindrance to the exercise of freedom by the citizens.

Every citizen, no matter what you feel about them, has the right under the 2nd Amendment to own and carry (keep and bear) arms. And reading the Federalist Papers, it is very, very clear that the 2nd was written as it was to ensure that the citizens of the country have right to own and carry the same weapons that the standing Army has so that the citizens would be on an equal footing with the standing Army if the need should ever arise to repel an attack by it.

The 2nd Amendment mentions nothing about any training requirement nor any cost or fee needed to pay to exercise a God given RIGHT.

The Federal government needs, and in fact, is there for one purpose. The common defense of the country. The States are supposed to have the responsibility of regulating commerce and passing laws for its citizens. The Federal government should have no say in your life. So in that respect, I can see a state requiring a permit to carry inside the borders of the state.

The older I get, the less my permit to carry is a badge of honor and more a thorn in my side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CommonMan101

We already have a National Permit.

All these regs and such need to go away. To save myself the headache of trying to put it into words that everyone can understand I'll let Ted speak for me:

Ted Nugent: “I believe that a person's moral compass can be determined by how he references free men the right to defend themselves. The second amendment is so obvious to me, its insane that there is an argument. Let’s pretend there is no document. Let’s pretend brave families didn’t leave the tyrants and slave drivers of Europe, so that they could practice the religion of their choice, they could speak out without being murdered, that they could produce wool without the King’s men coming and taking it from them every season of harvest. Lets pretend none of this happened. Lets just pretend that this guy named Ted Nugent, parachuted down to earth and woke up one morning and saw all of these wonderful resources and had dreams of excellence and being the best that I could be. I don’t need a document and I don’t need another man to explain to me that I have the right to defend my gift of life. And that there is an argument in America from Hilary Clinton, from Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, from a whole gaggle of numbnuts, who would try to tell me they will dictate where how and if, I can defend myself. I find that preposterous, I find that unacceptable and I will not accept it. I am a free man, DON’T Tread on Me, a good law abiding citizen, not convicted of a felony. The 2nd amendment of our bill of rights is my concealed weapons permit. PERIOD. That’s it.

-------------
Stop the insanity! You're giving the grabbers what they want by playing on their field of "control" with this permit stuff! You've already given in to the idea of gun control now it's just a matter of how much and how far until it's all gone.

Keep
It
Simple
Sweetie!

---

Even though those aren't all your own words, I believe you nailed it!

We've had a national permit since the Bill of Rights was signed. Little by little we've allowed those in power to limit it, and if the trend isn't reversed, what's happened to our brothers in the UK and Australia could very easily happen here. Could even happen in our lifetime.

The less goverment involvement we have in our lives the better. Therefore I cannot support a national CCW permit.

Ok, I'm gonna go take off my tinfoil hat now.

Nationalizing anything, especially these days, is not good in my book! :frown:

Probably a better way is to somehow lobby your own state to work on its reciprocal agreements. I know Virginia's has improved somewhat over the past several years but they could still get better. I'm guessing letters to your state's Attorney General and State Senators is what's needed. Fortunately we just elected a good Pro-2nd Amendment Attorney General here in Virginia: Ken Cucinelli!

From his page:

Quote:

---

I’ve worked for the repeal of unreasonable restrictions on concealed carry permit holders in restaurants and for reciprocity between states that issue concealed carry permits.

---

Quote:

---

The idea is not to minimize or do away with the need for training but rather to not have a situation where the fed sets mandates and controls as conditions for obtaining your carry permit.

---

But you know, as well as I do, if training is not mandated, many people will not get it, and may be a danger to themselves and others. Let's try a straw poll:

For those of you who took a required course to carry a concealed weapon...how many of you would have taken the course if it had NOT been required?

For the record: I am NOT in favor of federal involvement in my guns. I AM in favor of mandating safe gun handling and proper legal use. How? That IS a big can of worms, as we all can see by this thread.

In fact, there is one place the law needs to be relaxed. In states where there is a waiting period to buy or carry a gun: if someone has taken out a restraining order against another person (i.e., a domestic dispute/stalking situation), they should be automatically/instantly approved for a handgun.

Wow, a lot of posts rather quickly.

I did not mean to look like I was stirring up the pot.

I agree with you, I do not want the feds getting involved in state's rights, or a persons rights. The spirit of what I was suggesting was a National Permit that would actually be good for us (I know, cold frosty day when the Feds do something for the good of the people, yet we got/getting back carry in National Parks - Federally owned property universally recognized as no carry zones).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoJoGunn

The concept sounds ok, but in reality, nothing the Fed does really works well with others.

---

:hand10: Man ya nailed that one!

Quote:

---

If we had a state-wide receprocity agreement with all states participating, then we wouldn't need a National Concealed Permit Recognition thing from the Gov't.

---

:yup: one can only wish for such a sensible arrangement. I'm thinkin there's to many goofballs in office to allow it, or even give it a chance.

My fear is that we end up with an invalidation of the state permit and the national one ends up like say Maryland. A may issue permit that never gets issued to us mere citizens.

The state by state system is not perfect, but my Florida permit is valid in 28-30 states (too lazy to look it up) and for now that works for me. Not to mention it is much improved over the last 3-5 years.

Besides, it is also a big government issue. Most of us on here are for smaller government. Creating a NEW agency is not exactly making for smaller government and as others have said, watch how job creep has helped social security, the IRS, welfare...

No thanks. This system isn't that broken. And for those in socialist states. Work on fixing your own state. The rest of us in free (freer) states will help as we can but "fixing" it at the national level isn't the answer.

I'm always a bit taken aback by those who claim to be "rabid supporter(s) of 2A rights" while at the same time arguing for increased restrictions, suggesting that some states are handing out concealed carry permits to, well . . . anybody. Their claim that mandatory fees and training are necessary for "safety" is just as spurious as other gun control arguments, not backed up by any legitimate rationale, just trying to sound "reasonable".

Respectfully, as far as the "Gold standard" for states that issue. The way I see it. I'd say that any state that requires it's citizens to qualify and jump through hoops for there 2nd amendment right to become valid is not what I would consider the "Gold Standard". With some of the statements associated with the "gold standard" it's about the same as profiling IMO. Someone would have to prove their abilities and intellectual competence with a firearm before they have the right to self defense.:confused:

I liken the 2nd amendment right to bear arms to the judicial slogan "Innocent until proven guilty". If its good enough for the American court system, why shouldn't it be good enough for the 2nd amendment right to bear arms too. IMO, there's only one entity that I feel the need to prove my worthiness to, and it's not a state or federal government. JMO. :bier:

Anything that Washington sticks its collective nose into causes pain for the common man ie.. more regulation, a national database for politicians to abuse, etc. I'd like my name on fewer governmental lists not more. States recognizing each others CCW would be much better, I think. It wont happen because of $$$ states want the revenue of issuing their own permits whether res or non res.

Just my 2 cents

Let's look at this from a different perspective. Let's say you have a person who has absolutely no firearms training. No safety, tactical, legal, or any form of training whatsoever.

Using the above described person as an example, they still have a God-given right to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones, regardless of whether they've met anyone else's "standards" or not.

Don't get me wrong; I'm fully in favor of everyone gaining as much knowledge as possible where firearms are concerned. But here's the rub... if certain individuals within the federal government are allowed to set the "acceptable standard" for who can or cannot exercise the right to keep and bear arms, then God help us all. I could easily see it becoming like jumping through hoops to be "allowed" to carry and if this were under the federal umbrella, then it would apply everywhere.

This is the reason I consider myself a libertarian (The "little 'L' kind; I'm not a party member). We believe in a simple concept: freedom with responsibility. This is the way the Founding Fathers meant for it to be and it's the principle that made this country great. Everyone enjoys their rights but at the same time, they're responsible for their use of said rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TN_Mike

I'm sorry that you feel that the Government, the same organization that couldn't get water to the Super Dome for 5 days after Katrina, the same organization that has screwed up nearly every single thing it has gotten a hold of, is in some way needed to deem who is worthy of being ALLOWED to exercise a GOD given RIGHT. I really am sorry that you believe this because it demonstrates how deeply the vein of thought goes that believes that we need the government to look out for us. We do not. The government is in every instance a hindrance to the exercise of freedom by the citizens.

Every citizen, no matter what you feel about them, has the right under the 2nd Amendment to own and carry (keep and bear) arms. And reading the Federalist Papers, it is very, very clear that the 2nd was written as it was to ensure that the citizens of the country have right to own and carry the same weapons that the standing Army has so that the citizens would be on an equal footing with the standing Army if the need should ever arise to repel an attack by it.

The 2nd Amendment mentions nothing about any training requirement nor any cost or fee needed to pay to exercise a God given RIGHT.

The Federal government needs, and in fact, is there for one purpose. The common defense of the country. The States are supposed to have the responsibility of regulating commerce and passing laws for its citizens. The Federal government should have no say in your life. So in that respect, I can see a state requiring a permit to carry inside the borders of the state.

The older I get, the less my permit to carry is a badge of honor and more a thorn in my side.

---

Not to hijack the thread but to correct an incorrect statement ...

The problems at the Super Dome were 100 percent the fault of the mayor of New Orleans, not FEMA or any other Fed agency. I was there.