The benefits would be obvious. Driver license like ease of carrying in any state (local laws still applying).

Some argue that it would subject states to a national set of laws which could increase restrictions and gun control. What do you think?

Article regarding this issue:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/0 ... e-horizon/

Double edged sword... that I will probably get if one becomes available

It would probably take the most restrictive rules and make that the standard for the permit holders...

A lot would probably avoid it for that reason

I don't think it would be horrible. Might even be good. It's like marriage. A marriage (except for those icky, non Biblical gay ones) are recognized in all 50 states, even though there are 50 different sets of rules for them. The same principal could easily be applied to carry, although it would take federal law or courts to establish minimal guidelines that states could not restrict. The only question then, is what would those minimum guidelines be? (That could allow for shitholes like Chicago to keep barring carry in parks or on public transit, while permitting civilized places like Washington to give about zero fucks where you can carry, as long as it isn't a secured area or Federal building).

This...the other example would be drivers licenses.

States rights.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Indeed...Federalism is quite important, but just as drivers' licenses are issued by every state (with different laws/procedures for issuance and different rules of the road), why shouldn't carry permits be recognized in different states?

Why should someone from AZ be forced to get a permit?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

They shouldn't - if they wish to only carry in AZ (where that state doesn't require permits), but to carry in other states - which require permits, they will need one. Visit AK or any other state with constitutional carry and you wouldn't need one.

While the comparison to cars is flawed given the difference between a right and a privilege - the legal framework of the 14th Amendment' equal protection clause is still valid.

State's rights under the "Tenth" only apply to those that aren't "Enumerated" in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment pretty much restricts those state's rights many claim. SCOTUS is finally starting to address this issue as Chicago et al are finding out.

I don't know. It is a double-edged sword, but I think that if a CPL with either national reciprocity or reciprocity in a majority of states became available, I would obtain one. Right now, the states that you can obtain reciprocity permits for (through those perpetually offered classes or whatever) really aren't places I would be wanting or needing to go to anyway.

Good thing? Bad thing? Could be either but having a "National Carry License" or at the least "mandatory reciprocity" would sure be a lot better than what we have now.

Might not be such a good thing for those that make a business out of "training" for Utah Licenses and such though.



It would be nice to see something like how Driver's Licenses are handled. There is a national model traffic code that states use as the basis for issuing driver's licenses. Same thing could be done for Carry Licenses/Permits. A basic training standard as well as an understanding of the law.

Today all that's required in many states, WA included is strictly a background check. Not even a simple "Bullet comes out this end" type of training and showing an understanding of what the law actually says on the use of deadly force.