The NRA calls for a universal concealed carry permit
Now that concealed carry is permitted in all 50 states the NRA is calling for what would amount to a universal concealed carry permit which would make it easier for a lawful gun owner to carry his or her weapons from state to state.
Here is more:
With concealed weapons now legal in all 50 states, the National Rifle Association’s focus at this week’s annual meeting is less about enacting additional state protections than on making sure the permits already issued still apply when the gun owners travel across the country.
The nation’s largest gun-rights group, which officially opens its meeting of about 70,000 people Friday in Indianapolis, wants Congress to require that concealed weapons permits issued in one state be recognized everywhere, even when the local requirements differ. Advocates say the effort would eliminate a patchwork of state-specific regulations that lead to carriers unwittingly violating the law when traveling.
Currently the individual states decide which states’ concealed carry permits they will reciprocate and which ones they will not. Needless to say, states only reciprocate concealed carry permits to states which either have equivalent or more stringent laws, but this would take the issue out of the states hands and basically make a concealed carry permit universal.
Here is more from the NRA:
“Right now it takes some legal research to find out where you are or are not legal depending on where you are,” said Guy Relford, an attorney who has sued communities for violating an Indiana law that bars local gun regulation. “I don’t think that’s right.”
First of all let me state that all responsible gun owners should know the laws of the states they intend to carry weapons in, but on top of that as a state rights advocate I always have a problem with removing power from the states and handing it over to the Federal government and in this case, while the NRA might have the best interests of law abiding gun owners on its mind, there could be unforeseen consequences which the NRA is not considering.
This would for the first time put the issue of concealed carry permits on a Federal level and could possibly open up the door for Federal regulations on these permits. If this is the case what do you think is going to happen if the Federal government moves to standardize concealed carry permits? Would the Federal government move to make universal concealed carry permit laws which mirror Vermont law–which requires no permit to carry a weapon concealed–or would they move to tighten concealed carry requirements and actually make it harder for a law abiding citizen to obtain, or renew, a concealed carry permit? I know where I would put my money.
While this might seem like a great idea to the NRA and to law abiding gun owners I think we have to be very careful what we wish for because this might just have the opposite effect of what the NRA intends.
America's Watchtower 
Reblogged this on Brittius.com and commented:
I oppose “permits” of any sort, and favor Constitutional Carry. NRA should never be hinting towards any type of regulatory requirements that infringe on the twenty-seven words of 2A, unless allegations of NRA seeking to become a government regulatory agency are true. Then, they are a scam.
LikeLike
Thanks for the reblog! I agree with you; the second amendment is a concealed carry permit but of course the Feds do not see it this way and I fear what happens if they gain control over concealed carry permits.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome, and as you said, “gain control”.
LikeLike
Exactly right, Brittius and Steve. I’ve heard the question asked before: Why is the second amendment the only Constitutional right you need a permit to use?
LikeLiked by 1 person
A great question!
LikeLike
BINGO!
LikeLike
Good thought about issue. You have to know the feds would love to get their dirty little fingers on this. Lets see how the the Dems react.
LikeLike
Exactly! Once the Feds get their hands on this issue we can expect the worst to come from it.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on CLINGERS… BLOGGING BAD ~ DICK.G: AMERICAN ! and commented:
GyG!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on CITIZENS MILITIA OF MISSISSIPPI.
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
Thank you, Mr Dennis
LikeLike
good morning, thank you for sharing the intel!
LikeLike
You are welcome.
LikeLike
I am against anything that gives the federal government more control over the 2nd Amendment. The NRA may have good intentions, or not, but they need to step back and take another look at this.
Personally, I do not understand why this should be necessary. An Oklahoma driver’s license is recognized across all fifty states. So is every other driver’s license. If you have a concealed carry permit that is up to date in your home state, it should be a given that it is recognized in all fifty states. It should be as simple as that, without the federal government getting their sticky fingers into the mix.
LikeLike
The Full Faith and Credit clause is one of the more abused and ignored components of the Constitution. I took a course in Constitutional law, and part of the curriculum was that clause, and how almost from day #1 the states seemed to vie with each other in demonstrating the level of disdain in which they held it, especially with respect to recognizing marriages certified by other states – obviously still going on today, by the way.
Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Which is a good reason why the government should be out of marriage altogether.
LikeLike
I don’t think the NRA has taken a look at the bigger picture on this one Larry.
LikeLike
Gun control advocates are not simply trying to restrict a Constitutional right, or require that people get permission to use it. I think that the impediments, limitations, restrictions, or whatever you care to call them (“free speech” areas, IRS certification of a church for tax purposes, accreditation of journalists, etc . . .) are imposed not to suppress those rights, but to ensure that those who exercise them don’t infringe on others’ rights in the process.
Journalists, for example, have privileges not accorded to the general public in terms of access at various events and incidents. To give those privileges, we eventually had to start making rules – like you had to be employed by a newspaper or be a recognized stringer. (Those rules are being turned on their head now that everyone’s blogging, but that’s a different issue.) Issuing credentials to journalists, then, doesn’t infringe on the right of a free press, it actually protects it.
Those of us who favor background checks and concealed carry permits, etc., are concerned about the rights of others being infringed by some of the people who purchase firearms. Rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come to mind. (Even though they’re not enumerated in the BOR, I consider them to be among the penumbra of rights Mr. Douglass mentioned when he asserted that there’s a Constitutional right to privacy.)
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
I think you should have said “most gun control advocates” in your first sentence because there are those who believe that people should not be allowed to have weapons, or believe the right should be severely restricted and those are the people who make gun owners leery about what many consider to be reasonable actions. I can personally attest to the fact that New Hampshire and Maine do conduct background checks even though you do not need any type of permit in New Hampshire to buy a gun. You do need a permit in New Hampshire only to carry concealed.
As for the Bill of Rights not being a complete list of rights; I agree with you there and if I am not mistaken the reason there was no Bill of Rights included in the Constitution as originally written was because many felt that by listing some rights the government could claim this was the limit of the people’s rights.
LikeLike
“Most” instead of the implied “all?” Yes, absolutely – there are extremists in most camps, and I would fear for America if the right to own firearms became severely restricted. That said, I don’t think I’d feel uncomfortable in countries like Australia, where such ownership IS severely restricted, because it’s not just law, it’s part of their culture, their consciousness.
Complete list of rights? That’d be an interesting document. The BOR lists the most crucial, IMO – including #s 9 and 10 . . .
Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
Last time I checked, you still have to apply for an out of state CC WITH the state of Illinois and it will cost you, if you want to bring a loaded weapon into this state. My son lives in Arkansas and has a CC from there, but cannot use it here or come into the state with it loaded, it has to be in the trunk, unloaded. There is a CC now for Illinois, but so many strings are attached, alot of people are not doing it, me included. The strings come with a $$$ attached to them. We know that Illinois is corrupt, we have the same ilk in the White House, so why would anyone want the FEDS to get involved in this? This is just another way for the FEDS to get ahold of information that only the States should have. The State Police are the ones here that issue FOID cards and the CC permits. I thought we had states rights, is that a done deal along with alot of our other rights, now?
LikeLike
And that is where my problem lies if the Federal government manages to get their fingers in concealed carry. It will only be a matter of time before they try to make the conditions to get a permit the same in every state and we would see laws more like Illinois than Vermont or New Hampshire.
LikeLike
In the Old West, certain towns made laws to have those carrying to leave them at the Sheriff’s office until they left town – a form of gun control. Problem was those who robbed the bank or were hired killers, didn’t obey those laws.
Makes one consider who’s making the decisions now for this group: https://usahitman.com/nsccnagl/
LikeLike
Interesting link, maybe the NRA does understand what it is doing in this case!
You mean even back then the criminals did not follow the law? 😉
LikeLike
I completely agree with your thoughts here. I’m betting that the NRA is thinking that they can use the cudgel of the federal government to mandate laws to the states with the most restrictive regulations (after all federal law trumps state ). This could work if and only if one assumes that they can keep the political clout that they have today. I don’t think that would happen. Heck, I would say that it would be hubris on their part if they believe that assumption.
LikeLike
Grrr… WordPress removed some of my text. Please include a bit about including the rolling of eyes when I mention federal law trumping state law.
LikeLike
I am rolling my eyes as well. That is strange that wordpress removed some of your comment though! Rolling my eyes at that as well…..
LikeLike
I know what I did wrong. What ticks me off is that there are standard libraries out there that handle what I did better than just deleting text.
LikeLike
That could be the case here but if that is what they are thinking they are being extremely naive!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on disturbeddeputy and commented:
The NRA has NOT been as good a friend to gun owners as they like to portray themselves, but I do like this and hope they can get it done.
LikeLike
Hi admin of this site, do you allow guest posting ? Please let me know,
i’m interested 🙂
LikeLike