National Reciprocity

[barretcreek]

Let me toss a log into the punch bowl.
I am not wild about the reality of NR as opposed to the idea.
First, the 'Rats are going to tie it to 'Fix NCIC' and that will be a backdoor gift to the 'No Due Process' crowd, allowing everyone from an ER doctor to the school crossing guard the ability to get you 86'd from possessing a firearm.
Second, I fear the People's Democratic Republics will go into court and say 'if we have to let them carry, then make their states enact OUR standards for purchase or possession'. Not a bargain.
Third, I think too many people might work on the assumption the laws of self defense are uniform in all states. No way. We have a 'make my day law' as well as a 'make my neighbor's day' law. Good laws, but if you think that way in Noo Yuck plan on forwarding your mail to Sing Sing.

Your thoughts are welcome.

[S.A. Boggs]

I understand your concern and it is well founded. The saving grace is that states can do the same to them with concern for driving/marriage license. They can't have their cake and eat it too. Personally I wouldn't step foot in a people's republic way too much to lose.
Sam

[PWC]

In AZ, we have 'everyone can carry concealed'. It used to be the requirement for CCW was classroom training on the state / federal gun lawas at that time and training on what circumstances allowed the use of deadly force. Proficiency with your hand gun of choice was required.

Several years ago the training requirement was dropped, now any / every one can carry with no clue on where and when. True, the bad guys do not now know who can / may shoot back, but what makes a 'good shoot'?

I think that as a minim if there is to be a federal concealed carry, all states should require the same minimum training, and renewal at specific 4-5 year intervals. The confidence level of knowing the good guys 'should' know and respond the same in given circumstances will be higher than if the person next to you just bought a new .45 and is carrying it, just because he/she can. Let alone the hope they are competant shooters with their choice of firearm.

[togor]

There are no campaign contributions in legislation requiring training. I had safe handling HAMMERED into me from a scandalously young age by my father. I am no less a stickler with my own kids, and so far so good. But most gun buyers aren't like me, and we live in an age where convenience of commerce is king. Politicians take note of that reality. NR will be written to he lowest common denominator, and if passed that part of the law that tramples on the states' right to regulate may well be found unconstitutional.

[Sandpebble]

In AZ, we have 'everyone can carry concealed'. It used to be the requirement for CCW was classroom training on the state / federal gun lawas at that time and training on what circumstances allowed the use of deadly force. Proficiency with your hand gun of choice was required.

Several years ago the training requirement was dropped, now any / every one can carry with no clue on where and when. True, the bad guys do not now know who can / may shoot back, but what makes a 'good shoot'?

I think that as a minim if there is to be a federal concealed carry, all states should require the same minimum training, and renewal at specific 4-5 year intervals. The confidence level of knowing the good guys 'should' know and respond the same in given circumstances will be higher than if the person next to you just bought a new .45 and is carrying it, just because he/she can. Let alone the hope they are competant shooters with their choice of firearm.

Not that I disagree ... but what is it we want ?.... Federal Regulations ? .... or no Regulations ? .... or all the states agreeing on the same regulations .... or would that bring us back to Federal regulations? Which obviously we are afraid of as we can't abide the thought of a Doctor telling anyone his pill popping schizo patient wants a gun.... thus abusing his rights.

Where do we all really stand on all of this ..... ? but if you think all lawfull owners of a firearm and a concealed carry licence are going to respond the same and proficiently because they took some four hour class at the Gun Show .... well.... what a lot to think about as we go round thi merry go round

[RED]

There are no campaign contributions in legislation requiring training. I had safe handling HAMMERED into me from a scandalously young age by my father. I am no less a stickler with my own kids, and so far so good. But most gun buyers aren't like me, and we live in an age where convenience of commerce is king. Politicians take note of that reality. NR will be written to he lowest common denominator, and if passed that part of the law that tramples on the states' right to regulate may well be found unconstitutional.

So, you believe that any young man that didn't have a daddy hammering safe handling into him should be forever prohibited from CCW? Personally I am against NR. It is a States Rights issue. You have a choice to either not travel to/through a State that denies 2nd Amendment rights or obey their stupid laws.

I recently traveled to Alabama from MO. The best route was through IL. It would have been 100 miles and two hours shorter than the route through SE MO. I have had issues with crazy Illinois laws in the past and chose to take the longer route.

Unfortunately, States like IL, NY, CA, NJ, etc. etc have laws that any law abiding citizen cannot know about and they will gleefully put your ass in jail.

Just one example:, A guy from MO had a Ben Pearson recurve bow laying in the back seat. He was delivering the bow to a friend in Anna, IL. He was involved in a traffic accident when a drunk rear ended him while at the stoplight. He got a ticket because the bow was in plain sight and not in a case. It turned out that it was a safety issue... That bow could have fired by accident not being in a case.

[Allen]

In Alabama the other states that already honor our CCW permits are :

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

States that don't honor it I don't have any need to go to anyway.

If states such as CA and NJ are forced to honor a country wide CCW carry law they will no doubt intimidate you as much as possible.

The reason I posted this is because if you don't have a CCW yet and live in one of the above states the same may apply. Cost here is $20 per year, $15 per year for old farts. No serial number's, make or models asked for. Also no references asked for since they do their own background check. Initial visit was only about 30 minutes including the check and photo. A DL and a one page application (available on-line) was all that was required. So easy a dimocrat could do it.

[PWC]

I would prefer no regulation but as is shown repeatedly in the news and in these forums, people do stupid things. Wouldn't it be better if fed and states agreed on 'universal' education on when deadly force is appropriate

[Allen]

I would prefer no regulation but as is shown repeatedly in the news and in these forums, people do stupid things. Wouldn't it be better if fed and states agreed on 'universal' education on when deadly force is appropriate

You might be on to something there. While some people definitely will do stupid things others do the right things and are treated as public enemy #1.

If such training/rules/definitions were to take place people would know their legal limits, help prevent stupid acts and encourage self defense acts. Such education would/should also be enforced with cops and judges as well though. People shouldn't be afraid of the unknown consequences of protecting themselves or their love ones.

[togor]

No Red and stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that expecting NR to be accompanied with a training requirement is fantasy because the trend is away from training requirements altogether. I do disagree with that trend because of how I was raised. Anyways, a NR law that forces state A, with a training requirement, to recognize carry rights for an untrained but permitted personal from state B is a law that is probably unconstitutional because it tramples on the states' rights to regulate firearms.

[JB White]

States Rights. Even under the headings of DL's and marriage certificates the individual State laws still apply. I can pass on the right legally in Illinois but it's a ticket over the State line. The same should be in effect for concealed carry.

[dave]

Let me toss a log into the punch bowl.
I am not wild about the reality of NR as opposed to the idea.
First, the 'Rats are going to tie it to 'Fix NCIC' and that will be a backdoor gift to the 'No Due Process' crowd, allowing everyone from an ER doctor to the school crossing guard the ability to get you 86'd from possessing a firearm.
Second, I fear the People's Democratic Republics will go into court and say 'if we have to let them carry, then make their states enact OUR standards for purchase or possession'. Not a bargain.
Third, I think too many people might work on the assumption the laws of self defense are uniform in all states. No way. We have a 'make my day law' as well as a 'make my neighbor's day' law. Good laws, but if you think that way in Noo Yuck plan on forwarding your mail to Sing Sing.

Your thoughts are welcome.

I am not enthused about it either, mainly cause I am for state rights. And don't bring up driver licenses, that's a entirely different matter!

[dave]

In Alabama the other states that already honor our CCW permits are :

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

States that don't honor it I don't have any need to go to anyway.

If states such as CA and NJ are forced to honor a country wide CCW carry law they will no doubt intimidate you as much as possible.

The reason I posted this is because if you don't have a CCW yet and live in one of the above states the same may apply. Cost here is $20 per year, $15 per year for old farts. No serial number's, make or models asked for. Also no references asked for since they do their own background check. Initial visit was only about 30
minutes including the check and photo. A DL and a one page application (available on-line) was all that was required. So easy a dimocrat could do it.

All very good for Alabama, but in MI---training 100 to 150 bucks, permit 100 bucks (maybe lil more by now), 100 buck renewal, every 4 or 5 years. We do have 'open carry' but when you get in a car it is considered 'concealed', so must be unloaded and inaccessible.

[Allen]

I'm for states rights too but what happens in one state sometimes affects all states. DL's are an example. If California rules it is OK to give illegals a DL and say Alabama doesn't these illegals can still drive legally into Alabama with their CA license even though AL doesn't approve.

As far as CCW's are concerned all states should honor them from any other state as that means the holder of this license has had an extensive background check--something the lib's are pushing for as a step toward confiscation.

[dave]

No Red and stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that expecting NR to be accompanied with a training requirement is fantasy because the trend is away from training requirements altogether. I do disagree with that trend because of how I was raised. Anyways, a NR law that forces state A, with a training requirement, to recognize carry rights for an untrained but permitted personal from state B is a law that is probably unconstitutional because it tramples on the states' rights to regulate firearms.

Do states have a "right to regulate firearms"? The second amend. says they do not! The states can only regulate what the constitution does not!