The law authorizing retired and active LEOs to carry in all states did not establish any uniform qualification standard. All it said was that the inviduals have to be qualified by their agency. Why would our CCW necessarily be any different?
Because being a LEO who must qualify regularly, and did so for 20 years or more if retired is seen as a standard itself.
Plus it is a segment of society general treated differently as of late (especialy since 9/11) than other citizens. I have never seen credibile anti campaigns to remove police arms for example. Most antis in fact acknowledge police need firearms. So it is hardly challenged or scrutinized.
Technicaly however the law has little constitutional merit. It has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and should be outside the jurisdiction of the federal government.
The same is not true for CCW, it would be challenged and scrutinized by opposition.
CCW would come to be viewed more like a driver's license held to national standards. It is not a seperate class of citizens being granted permanent privilidge. It is individuals that can retain a privilidge by meeting requirements and paying fees periodicly, but that privilidge goes away as soon as they fail to renew.
So even if at first it just started as a forced recognition of other state's licenses it would not be long before the federal government set minimum standards.
People having the ability to purchase out of state permits would probably be one of the first things to go. Otherwise everyone would just pruchase a permit from one of the easiest states by mail if it was forced to be recognized by all other states.
You cannot get an out of state driver's license. You certainly cannot get one by mail. Within a few years I think CCW would only be available from your own state of residence if all states were forced to recognize all permits.
It would also allow a back door restriction of various firearm types down the road. I could see a bill sponsored to limit the capacity of CCW firearms for example, because nobody needs more than ___ rounds to defend themselves. How long before a member of congress sponsored a bill limiting the power of a CCW firearm?
Just as there is national guidelines for maximum speed limits, national standards for DUI, national standards for vehicle emissions, safety standards for vehicles etc. Once it becomes a national program the criteria is subject to federal oversight.
The final choice is up to the state, but they always comply when funding is witheld because they don't meet the fed imposed standards for federal money.
If only certain firearms qualified, the market for others would be far less, and I think you would see the variety of firearms that did not meet those standards begin to shrink in the market.
Technicaly you can buy any car you want, you just cannot drive it on public roads. Yet how many places do you know of that sell high performance cars which are not legal for the road, and don't meet the emission standards or safety standards to be sold for use on the road? You can get them, but since they are worthless to 99.99% of the public you won't see them in most dealerships.
Handguns that did not meet the yearly increasing federal CCW requirements would likely be the same. The market for them would be small, and the market would cater to the larger segment of buyers.
I think a better thing to fight for would be some sort of "RKBA enforcement act". One that forces everyone to follow the law that already exists. The one that says "shall not be infringed" which we all just allow to be ignored at the state and federal level. You cannot get much clearer than "shall not be infringed".
Does it really just mean shall be only infringed in "reasonable" ways as decided by government? That is bascily what Mexico's says, perhaps we should just borrow thiers?
Encouraging the feds to have oversight on yet another license would be a step backwards for RKBA in the RKBA strongholds. The only people that would gain a short term benefit are those in really anti states. However the representatives of those states would quickly change that through pressure to impose national CCW standards. If they are forced to allow people from other states to walk around with guns due to an issued license, they are going to want strict guidelines for those licenses.
Do you really want anti politicians in the House and Senate imposing thier standards on CCW permits in free states?It may harm the very culture that keeps RKBA alive in America even in anti states, by reducing the freedoms in pro gun states. The RKBA strongholds would be outnumbered and outrepresented by the more populous anti states imposing such standards.
How many years do you think that culture would stay as strong as it is in really free states if they started being accustomed to such controls on a regular basis?
The result could be even stricter gun control than ever before 10+ years from now.
