Hear me out, but I think a federal CWP should exist on some level.
1. I think the law should state that it would just be an add on to current state CWPs by making one get a license in one's home state and two non-resident licenses.
This would mean that states are still able to give and negotiate CWPs and their reciprocity with other states.
Who's to say one state or ten is a justifiable limit to be placing on people? Then what happens when a perfectly upstanding person decides to head to a different state, but gets blocked/denied by such limitations? By what right/authority, such limitations on one's right to carry arms?
2. Weed out people that just don't need one so make it a may issue.
You know, the concept of may-issue has been done in many states. In some, unbelievable as it sounds, protection of self and loved ones against predation is not considered a justifiable "need." Hell, WHAT ELSE
could be more justifiable? It's lunacy, to say that protection of people's lives doesn't qualify as justifiability. In short, it's the whole point of being defensively armed.
3. Further weed out people by making it a business expense and not a bragging right by making the fee an investment not a thing that people can say "look what I have".
If the fee to get a federal CWP was say, just tossing this out, $4k would you or your neighbor get one? Not likely, but a bail bondsman or body guard would get one just so they know they could do their job without fear and be able to advertise that they can (with other licenses) work in any state.
And so many of those most in need due to location / socio-economic status end up being the ones who cannot afford such an infringement.
4. Make proficiency a requirement such as mandating classes, tests and listing guns one plans on having (type not serial number) so if you qualify with a 9mm you can carry a 9mm.
It gets touchy here but I would say pacify the hard left with two weeks training and qualifying test.
Proficiency, prior to exercising a right of defending one's life? Denied, merely because it's with arms, because a fearful few hired staff have determined proficiency and need justifies denial of rights?
That's like first demanding proficiency in thought, reasoning, language and writing skills prior to being authorized to speak. That just makes no sense, given the
right of a person to do the things protected by the 1A. It makes just as little sense (none) to similarly vet people prior to exercising their right to arms if they so choose. In either case, it's a self-correcting problem: deliberate or criminal malfeasance with respect to those things (speaking, as in slander/libel; or murder/robbery) should be incentive enough for those who care to be "good" to do so. In
neither case, does waggling our prohibitionist fingers at people stop the criminals from ignoring such misuse of the rights. But that is no reason to unconstitutionally limit and infringe upon everyone's rights simply because a few deliberate abusers (criminals) of the right exist.
Seems clear (to me, at least) that about the only
real debatable thing is: why in the world we allow
anyone to justify that "
shall not be infringed" means something else entirely, to the point of infringing upon all people out of abject fear of what a negligible percentage of people might do. How we can continue these tweaks instead of true reform to what it needs to be is beyond me.
With the 1A, we've got a good system in place: no infringements whatsoever; yet, holding people accountable for the damage they do to others via misuse (slander, libel laws).
With the 2A, we've got a horrible farce in place that some call a "system": infringements galore; courts full of judges who back the anti-gunner agenda despite the unconstitutionality of any infringements; and a revolving-door, turnstile approach to "crime" control that takes a back seat to whatever flavor-of-the-month infringement and "tweak" can be shoved down citizens' throats next month, in place of going after all criminals heavily and holding them fully accountable for their actions.
Any federal-level (or any other level) licensing scheme (along with every other infringement, really) is just that: a mechanism to determine who shall and shall not be allowed to exercise their right to defend themselves effectively via arms, and what penalties are going to be assessed against those for certain aspects of possession, ownership, carry method, carry location, quantity, capacity or whatever else.
