http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/gun-owners-concealed-weapons-country-bill/2015/02/12/id/624568/


Sooooooo close.

If WA drivers licenses and marriage licenses are recognized in other states - why isn't my CPL?

With that said - I don't see it happening any time soon.

Because of Fed involvement.




But why should a CPL mean anything?

Indeed...but that's a different discussion.

I agree that a CPL should not be required in the first place, but it would sure be nice to only have to get one permit and all states (to include CA and HI) have to recognize it. If I have to get some 10 round glock mags so I can carry my G19 in CA, so be it.

this idea is too stupidly simple to become reality. Someone needs to show them how they can make a buck or two off the idea then it may have a chance

Funny how there are no Demorat co-sponsors of this bill. Where are the supposed "pro-gun Demorats"? A similar bill failed by 3 votes awhile back, and yet we picked up the Senate in the last mid-terms. I won't hold my breath but I will keep my fingers crossed.

I am trying to imagine the aftermath of such a vote passing both houses.

Then?

Some States would file an injunction to stop it, but the states that don't will allow reciprocity...

Biggest question is who makes the rules and what training component is required, as there is sure to be one


But before we get excited... the current president will veto it

Actually, the biggest barrier to CPL recognition has nothing to do with Federal Government. Lots of states recognize CPL from lots of other states - it's not something that the Federal Government controls.

What will happen, however, I think is some sort of renormalization of CPL rules. For instance, in WA CPL is shall issue - if you don't fail a somewhat extended background check, you will get it. That's one of the reasons other states don't recognize it. In TX or UT it requires training, which is why more states recognize it.

So one outcome might be that getting a CPL in WA will become harder.

I have no problem with a standardized training component to getting a federal CPL. its a good and fair idea, wont stop certain numbskulls from shooting themselves anyway ( ahem, ) but if they want to see, test or train to some proficiency level wont that make us all better and maybe...safer??

it is a fair point and obstacle...how do you reconsile all the different laws (class requirement, range qual, only certain pistols on your permit, etc.). Perhaps states may wish to go a two permit route. My understanding is Idaho has an "enhanced" permit which has more requirements, but is recognized by more states. Even if it cost $100, it would be cheaper to get a WA enhanced permit that gets me all 50 states and DC that it does to get umpteen different permits to only get most states.

I'm not sure why the Antis don't support it. You (the anti) get a voluntary registration of a subset of gun owners. It seems like it would be in their interest to support.

I agree, a nationally administered CPL that is separate from state CPL would be the best route...

passing the national CPL requirements would allow you a nationally recognized permit while those with no interest in going outside of the state, can stay with getting a state issued one.

I won't even be against the state requiring that any applicant for a national CPL, get and pass one from their home state if one is available... -this would affect a lot of "ban states" but limit their ability to challenge the law since they can still regulate their citizens just for the sake of it