IMO, we still have states rights. IMO, traveling to Oregon and California I should be able to with my WA permit, but I need to know where I can and can't while in CA. I'll have to know if there is a duty to inform LEO when stopped, can I carry at an outdoor concert...whatever.

Excellent point. Guess an acceptable minimum standard would need to be established.

Ah. Ok, I am starting to see an error in doing it the way I assumed it would be done.

As in... When you go to california, will your CPL be good, as per feds... BUT... You have to be aware of all the local and state laws they have there, and carry accordingly? Good point!

Or do they, just make all CPLs the same, when it comes to over state line carry? Etc...

I don't see a way to get around to it. For example, you can carry in the WA legislative chamber concealed, but pretty sure you can't per state law.

IMO, a CCW reciprocity just means the other state has to recognize your permit and treat you just as they would one of their own licensed citizens.

Nationwide constitutional carry is the only answer. Any other approach will be a legal nightmare for all parties involved.

Yes.
Like it is now.

The most important step, I believe, is codifying the 2A as a Federal Civil Right. That ends the argument in a language liberals can understand and support. Tie it to civil rights and it's over. Throw in denial of federal $, much like the threat with sanctuary cities, and the deal is sealed.

I don't see any real-world downside to reciprocity.

I envision it will be akin to a DL or back when gays could only marry in a few states, but that marriage was then recognized by law in all 50 states. Heck, bakers are forced to bake cakes for gays over violating their "civil rights" now! As long as you're complying with the driving laws, or marital laws, in each state, the other states will recognize it.

Nobody is supposed to legally create gun-owner databases. They probably exist regardless, so that's a far-fetched concern.

I would love to just start eroding in whole chucks all the gun control. I imagine a world soon where you can live and travel to previously very undesirable (from a liberty standpoint) places like CA and OR and MA and HI... Places I really hate to visit because I'm effectively disarmed.

To my understanding it already is a civil right. At least according to the definition of what a civil right is. If it isn't please explain how exactly it is not.

Further, isn't it already incorporated against the states and subject to strict scrutiny since McDonald v. City of Chicago 2010?

As good as that sounds I don't think it's that great of an idea. First off, how will you weed out the felons? At least with a CPL people are forced to undergo a BGC. (like the D/L Test).

Second, I would like to see some basic training required. That MIGHT prevent some stupidity like the bozo that was cycling his semi-auto in a Renton theater and ended up shooting a woman in front of him. I say MIGHT but at least it's an attempt. I've seen people walk out of gun stores with firearms that are so ignorant of firearms their new purchase should have a large arrow stamped on the barrel that says "Bullet Comes out Here!!".

I don't see the Fed's getting any more involved than they are if Concealed Carry Reciprocity became law across the country. We don't see them involved in the individual vehicle ownership and stay focused on "emissions and safety of the vehicles".

Sure would be nice to be able to drive across state lines without having to stop, unload, lock up, and resume driving. Also would be nice to know there would be no consequences if you forgot and ended up standing at the gas pump in Weed CA with your pistol exposed on your belt.

Weed them out from what? Carrying concealed weapons after felony convictions and without a permit? Do you think they dont already do that? The only difference in WA law in having and not having a CPL requirement is that law abiding people who want to carry have to go through a BGC. If we removed the CPL law and just allowed anyone to legally carry who wasn't a felon or otherwise prohibited not much would change. It would still be illegal for prohibited persons to carry, just like it is now. And they still would, just like they do now. Most people who wouldn't put in effort to get a CPL under the current system would likely not carry even if there were no license requirement. You cant cure idiot by making a training requirement either.

Further, even without a CPL a person who wants to obtain a gun legally in order to carry it legally has to go through a BGC anyway.

I think this is falling into the trap of believing that the CPL laws are somehow an exception to the rule we all know: Criminals dont give a flying fuck about the law.

Yeah, what ^he^ said.

Glad you typed all that, so I didn't have to!

Deadshot, I like you, dude, but I think you are straining to find problems that don't exist.

Two things.

First of all, there is NO need to pass any more laws. All that is needed is the full enforcement of Article 4 of the Constitution--Full Faith and Credit, meaning that each State must respect the judicial proceedings of the other. By following the letter of the law, a CCW/CPL from any State would be accepted by all.

Second...



Really, dude? Really?

Pretty much that.

Expect the left to howl state's rights if this happens, the same way state's rights were invoked over gay marriage.

End result should hopefully be gay married people carrying concealed pistols in all fifty states while buying marijuana abortions or something like that. Also I've been up for almost 24 hours with no sleep.

Once the Go Fast wears off you will be fine. Just lower your dosage next time.

I've already posted proof of 'selective enforcement'....IT'S ALREADY FUCKING HAPPENING just on a smaller scale. Did you not see the article and quote from the police chief?

Yell at me all you want, I'm not the police chief that said 'fuck your rights, we're gonna illegally detain you anyway'....