This is a discussion on National Constitutional Carry... within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by spike make our CC permits reconized just like our state issued drivers lic's. it really is that simple This has been discussed ...
As I have stated in the past, we do not want the Federal Government getting involved in any way with regulating carry, either with a national permit system or with constitutional carry. What the Federal Government regulates, the Federal government will eventually outlaw. Period.
Much better to let the states set up their own laws and have reciprocal agreements. Keep the Federal government out of it entirely.
The furthest back I found anything was a 1961 interstate compact, but that also dealt with DUI reporting.
Yours is an interesting question and I hope someone can provide an authoritative answer; with some citations, as my explanation is clearly just based on repetition of stuff others have posted elsewhere on this board.
Anyway, she would not have been able to carry back then. NYC has, since 1911, The Sullivan law, which is one of the oldest gun control laws on the books.
Even Texas had gun controls in place that far back, dating from the 19th century.
These type of laws are nothing new really. They've been around a very very long time. They have been controversial a very long time, and will continue to be for eternity unless 2A is amended to much more clear language.
The only way you will ever see national carry for citizens is if very stringent requirements are attached. Something along the lines of carry permit requirements for states such as CA, NY, MA, HI. Then they would require yearly qualifications. This is something we retired LEO and even current LEO have to do now for national carry.
SA XD45C, XD40sc (SA Combat Trigger Job, XS Big Dot Sights)
The #1 goal of police work is to go home at the end of your shift!
Of course, the majority of Conservatives (of which I am) won't push the latter as it would probably force all states to observe gay marriages, which is a non-starter for a lot of the Conservatives (not me).
Again, this is something for the Courts to decide, but it's probably not going to happen with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, and no lower court will be able to end the debate without appeal.
In short, in most cases (IL, CA, MD and a few others not withstanding) the state governments dislike or distrust the federal government almost as much as I do.
Like I said earlier, someone in the Federal government needs to start an audit of the Federal statutes, to verify their constitutionality, and to get rid of the ones that aren't relevant anymore, and the ones that conflict with each other, or are redundant.
I'll not hold my breath for that one, lol.
Last edited by livewire; January 10th, 2011 at 05:26 PM. Reason: typeo that changed the whole meaning of the above