HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Would You Support Stricte...

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 10:57 AM

Would You Support Stricter Federal Training Requirements in Exchange for National CCW Reciprocity?

This is a question for both the pro-gun and pro-control sides.

I've been engaged in a back-and-forth PM session with another member who favors more gun control, and this idea for a compromise came up.

How would you feel about being able to pack heat (concealed-carry) anywhere in the contiguous 48 states without having to worry about violating some states' arbitrary laws during long-range road trips, if it meant having to put up with more rigorous training requirements to qualify to get a Federal CCW permit?

This would mean that unrestricted states like Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont would have to adopt stricter uniform Federal training standards, but on the flip-side, states like California, Illinois, and New York couldn't deny permits altogether, or only issue them if you are rich or politically well-connected.

I'm thinking this might be one area of compromise which might satisfy most (but not all) pro-gun folks, and most (but not all) pro-control folks, and be able to get Congress and President Obama to come together and deliver on during Obama's second term.

24 replies, 2650 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Would You Support Stricter Federal Training Requirements in Exchange for National CCW Reciprocity? (Original post)
LAGC Jan 2012 OP
Jean V. Dubois Jan 2012 #1
LAGC Jan 2012 #2
Jean V. Dubois Jan 2012 #3
LAGC Jan 2012 #22
Jean V. Dubois Jan 2012 #23
safeinOhio Jan 2012 #4
rrneck Jan 2012 #5
X_Digger Jan 2012 #6
SteveW Jan 2012 #24
ileus Jan 2012 #7
spin Jan 2012 #8
TupperHappy Jan 2012 #12
burf Jan 2012 #9
PavePusher Jan 2012 #10
Tuesday Afternoon Jan 2012 #14
Glassunion Jan 2012 #11
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2012 #13
ObamaFTW2012 Jan 2012 #15
aikoaiko Jan 2012 #16
PavePusher Jan 2012 #17
aikoaiko Jan 2012 #18
E6-B Jan 2012 #19
S_B_Jackson Jan 2012 #20
Straw Man Jan 2012 #21

Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 11:00 AM

1. Given that the trend for the last 20 years has been for more liberalized CCW laws,

 

why give anything up? If things continue as they have been, national CCW reciprocity is only 10 years away...if that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jean V. Dubois (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 11:03 AM

2. Why settle for 10 years when we can have it in 2?

Do you not think Obama might be willing to deal on this issue?

I mean, we can always fight for stricter or more lax training requirements after the fact, but why not at least find some common ground in the near-term to stop the arbitrary state-by-state disparities that exist now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 11:10 AM

3. I don't think Obama would deal on this issue, no.

 

I don't have the slightest doubt that he would veto a national CCW reciprocity bill. If he's re-elected, this pushes it at least 5 years away. If the Republicans win the presidency and both houses, we may well have national CCW reciprocity in only 2 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jean V. Dubois (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 11:09 AM

22. Well...

He did kind of surprise everyone by signing into law concealed-carry in national parks, so I wouldn't put anything past him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #22)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 11:23 AM

23. Fair point, I'd forgotten about that...but I'd still be surprised if he signed national CCW.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 11:17 AM

4. I think it may be a good idea.

I'm always for better training, background checks and some way to check up on current holders in case they become ineligible.

I take it this would be voluntary for those that wish to obtain a national license and they are willing to pay the actual cost of the program.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 11:18 AM

5. Yes. Of course I'm in favor of training

as well as national a national standard, so there is no compromise there for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 11:28 AM

6. I'm not sanguine about putting that control in the feds hands.

First, the bureaucratic hurdles- what agency would be responsible for issuing it, the BATFE? Knowing them, oh hell no.

Second, re "violating some states' arbitrary laws" .. are you talking about different states restrictions on where one may or may not legally carry? If so, I think you'd run afoul of the constitution and ninth / tenth amendments.

Re "unrestricted states like Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont" -- again, I don't think the federal government has the power to dictate that to the states, especially if a person stays within their own state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 03:00 PM

24. Good points. Interesting trade-off, but then there is federalism. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 11:36 AM

7. Can we get a guarantee the courts won't step in with what they feel is best for us?

If so then yeah I'd support this idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 12:19 PM

8. Much would depend on the course and the cost...

The standards or the expense could be set so high that no one except experienced target shooters or the 1% could qualify. The amount of time required to complete the course might be so long that the average person with a full time job would not be able to take that time away from his work. The number of locations where the course is taught might be so limited as to require a long waiting period before an individual could qualify or a person would have to travel a considerable distance to take the course.

The idea should not be to place as many hurdles as possible in the path of getting a carry permit but to standardize training to a minimum acceptable level.

The current system works well for me as I have a Florida concealed weapons permit which allows me to carry in most states. Since I rarely travel, the states where my permit is not accepted is of little consequence to me. I have no problem with continuing with the current system and setting up a separate national carry license which could have higher standards for those who wanted one.

Those who are licensed to carry should also be aware that allowing the federal government to start regulating all concealed carry might prove to be a foolish idea. In five or ten years the requirements and expense might skyrocket and many who currently carry might find they have to give up their license.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 02:18 PM

12. This (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:04 PM

9. I have to side with X Digger on this matter.

How long until the national standards for concealed carry are those of Washington DC? A anti gun administration could place groups like MAIG and Brady at positions of power in the interpetation and implementation of the program. How many permits would be issued under that scenario?

There is an article on a young lady attempting to become a gun owner/carrier in Washington DC. "Emily gets her gun" shows just how screwed up things could be.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:26 PM

10. Only if applied equally to every other Constitutional Right.

 

All of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #10)


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 01:43 PM

11. I don't like the idea of give and take.

I would rather take each on its own merits.

I agree with CCW state reciprocity. I do not agree with a Federal CCW permit.
I agree with firearms training. I do not agree with Federally administered training.

I like the idea of both, and would like to see both, however I would not want to trade one for the other or done on the federal level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 03:08 PM

13. I don't think I'd have a problem with federal standards

But I'd want the NRA involved in setting the standards. Much of Michigan's training materials seem to come from NRA.

If it was run in a similar manner to Motorcycle Safety Foundation classes, it might be a great idea.
http://online2.msf-usa.org/msf/Default.aspx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 05:44 PM

15. What I fear

 

is that by ceding authority on the issue to the federal government, we will adopt the most strict issuing standards nationwide, rather than relaxing the requirement in the more restrictive states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 07:43 PM

16. Possibly as an overlay requirement.


Carrying within one's own state could still be state defined, but there could be documentation of training for national reciprocity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #16)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 10:44 PM

17. I thought we were supposed to be trying to make things LESS complicated? <shrug> n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #17)

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 11:12 PM

18. Thats the goal for some people.


Me. I'm not interested in limiting the states' authority to define how their residents can carry within their own states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 12:37 AM

19. No deal. I will wait and get CCW in due time.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 07:20 AM

20. I do not support a National CCW Reciprocity bill. CCW is not a federal issue at all.

The states - independent of the US government - are steadily adopting an increasingly uniform set of gun laws, including CCW reciprocity, as well as Castle Doctrine, and shield laws from civil suits.

At the federal level, the only thing that should be done is the enactment of federal laws to protect those travelling - specifically by commercial air carriers - to protect them from BS gotcha efforts that have become de rigueur at some cities like Newark, NJ, Chicago, and NYC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 10:47 AM

21. I would be in favor if and only if...

...current state carry policies were left intact, including whatever reciprocity arrangements the states may wish to engage in. I would just add a federal-level permit that would allow carry in every state. It would be strictly an opt-in thing, and training requirements should be kept reasonable in terms of time and cost.

It would be nice to no longer have to worry about making a wrong turn while carrying on a road trip and ending up a felon in New Jersey when only seconds before I was a law-abiding citizen in New York. Bad navigation shouldn't be a felony -- unless you're a cruise ship captain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread