How do we get a National Right to Carry Law enacted?

[Sam1911]

What funding moneys would states be receiving that would be supporting this new concealed carry legislation? I don't think I've seen any proposed bills that came with federal funds, which might be withheld for non adoption of whatever federally mandated standards ... which also haven't been proposed.

The feds will withhold the money if your state doesn't adopt ... wait, WHAT money?

 

[Midwest]

and all 50 states now allow at least some people to legally carry.

True, except those who are living in the so called "may issue states" of NJ, MD and HI are really living in the "may not issue" states. Those residents are not going to get a carry permit unless they are an armed guard, politically connected, a celebrity or ex-LEO ...or maybe in some so called extreme cases.


NJ, MD and HI is not like NY State or California where they issue carry permits in some counties of the state.

NJ, MD and HI do not issue carry permits in any of it's counties to it's residents unless they are an armed guard, politically connected, a celebrity or ex-LEO...or in some so called extreme cases.

The chances of you or I getting a carry permit in those states is pretty much zero. While 50 states in theory offer carry permits, in reality only 47 states actually do.

In NJ you just can't move to another county and hope to get a carry permit like residents in NY State or California can.

In NJ you can move to any county within the state and the chances of getting a permit is still remains zero. The same goes for Maryland and Hawaii.

Three states remain effectively off limits for getting a carry permit.
.

 

[hatt]

What funding moneys would states be receiving that would be supporting this new concealed carry legislation? I don't think I've seen any proposed bills that came with federal funds, which might be withheld for non adoption of whatever federally mandated standards ... which also haven't been proposed.

The feds will withhold the money if your state doesn't adopt ... wait, WHAT money?

What money do states get for marriage? Yet the feds have set standards.

You aren't ever going to get some utopian clean bill. It's never happened and isn't going to happen in the future. It's certainly not happening in this area where every state has different laws that can be vastly different. All that would have to be sorted out and then we'd add some "common sense gun legislation" to the mix. Heck, your beloved NRA would most likely be lobbying for a national training standard so they can get a piece of the pie.

We're going to risk one the great successes we've had so you can travel to oppressive states. No thanks.

 

[Sam1911]

What money do states get for marriage? Yet the feds have set standards

Ok, that's simply a completely different situation and process.

The marriage issue was settled by the courts, not by a federal law that comes with statutory requirements and rewards.

If the Supreme Court was to decide that carrying a gun in public is a right protected by the 2nd Amendment and that the states cannot abrogate that right, then that would be comparable to Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

[hatt]

Ok, that's simply a completely different situation and process.

The marriage issue was settled by the courts, not by a federal law that comes with statutory requirements and rewards.

If the Supreme Court was to decide that carrying a gun in public is a right protected by the 2nd Amendment and that the states cannot abrogate that right, then that would be comparable to Obergefell v. Hodges.

It's not a different situation at all. The feds got involved in marriage years ago and now control it. The natural progression of big .gov. You can argue nuances but you can't argue the results. Keep the feds out of my pocket or waistband.

 

[Sam1911]

Ok, fine, but it is a totally different situation from the BILLs we are discussing here.

Court cases arise from "we the people" appealing laws against them and their interests and seeking to have the Court determine whether the Constitution requires a law be upheld or struck down.

Legislation is the process of making new laws.

There is a big difference between the two and to simply say it's all "the feds" trying to get in your pocket or your pants (...unless you had a personal stake in the outcome of Obergefell I don't see why you'd feel that's a case of the feds trying to get in YOUR pants... ) is very naive.

 

[oneounceload]

What funding moneys would states be receiving that would be supporting this new concealed carry legislation? I don't think I've seen any proposed bills that came with federal funds, which might be withheld for non adoption of whatever federally mandated standards ... which also haven't been proposed.

The feds will withhold the money if your state doesn't adopt ... wait, WHAT money?

MY state, (and I'll bet a lot of others) gets a lot of federal monies for various law enforcement activities, whether it is in the form of DHS or similar - same scenario as highway funding - we send them our money, they siphon off a bunch to pay trhemselves, then give us back some of our own money. Local governments seem to always cave when it comes to getting funding cutoff; and you can bet the NY, NJ, DC, CA, etc. crowd will be setting any and standards/funding, etc. requirements.

 

[Sam1911]

So instead of the bills currently under discussion, you're talking about some other bills which might come along? And which would hypothetically come with funding, and with strings attached to that funding?

 

[hatt]

So instead of the bills currently under discussion, you're talking about some other bills which might come along? And which would hypothetically come with funding, and with strings attached to that funding?

You have to discuss the bills as they're likely to be passed vs the proposed bills that don't mean anything.

Please give us some examples of quality fed legislation passed within the last 10-15 years?

Then explain why you'd trust the folks in DC to do the right thing for CCW. These are the same guys that ignore 60%+ of the population but are going to care about 10-20 million. Make me understand.

 

[Sam1911]

You're asking me to review all of federal legislation for the last decade and a half and tell you which things I liked or didn't? Really?

If you want to have an anti-government, quasi-anarchic response to the whole idea, fine. You can just preface everything you write with "I hate the government and don't want any laws about anything!" and then we'll know that you don't have much to add to the conversation.

 

[hatt]

Stop being a drama queen. Not wanting to get the feds involved for minimal to no benefit for most people is a far cry from "I hate the government and don't want any laws about anything!"

 

[Sam1911]

But your vote is simply "No." Or do I misunderstand you?

 

[JSH1]

What funding moneys would states be receiving that would be supporting this new concealed carry legislation? I don't think I've seen any proposed bills that came with federal funds, which might be withheld for non adoption of whatever federally mandated standards ... which also haven't been proposed.

The feds will withhold the money if your state doesn't adopt ... wait, WHAT money?

What money is needed to accept an out-of-state concealed carry license?

As to what money can be withheld, all kinds of money for various programs. Why does every state in the USA have a DUI blood alcohol level of 0.08? Because if a state sets a higher limit the Feds withhold all highway funding.

 

[hatt]

It's certainly NO. The potential benefits, which are few, aren't worth the risk of letting the feds ring in. If the legislation isn't going to help people behind the lines carry it's doing little or nothing for most people. If it does deal with those people and the feds set standards it's incredibly dangerous for everyone else.

Do you question the great CCW successes we've had and are continuing to have without dealing with Congress?

 

[Sam1911]

That is a possibility, but there's generally some relevance between the funds and the issue at hand.

As you say, the BAC (and highway maximum speed) laws are tied to federal highway funds. Not, say, housing and urban development or homeland security funds. Same with educational funds, I believe.

I don't think we're likely to see an bill get passed that says "All states must recognize the carry credentials issued by any other state ... and we'll pull your federal education dollars if you don't!" Or something like that.

And I don't know of any federal funding for citizen gun ownership matters.

 

[Sam1911]

Do you question the great CCW successes we've had and are continuing to have without dealing with Congress?

Absolutely not!

I am personally unconvinced on the matter of a national carry law. I'd rather see the SCOTUS decide in our favor. And I personally believe both possibilities to be a stretch of optimism past reasonable limits.

But I am surprised sometimes at both the optimism and confusion and obstreperousness of many folks on "our" side about efforts to this end.

 

[oneounceload]

And I don't know of any federal funding for citizen gun ownership matters.

Pittman-Robertson
http://range.nra.org/pittman-robertson-funds.aspx

Federal law further requires that $8,000,000 per year shall be apportioned among the States and used to make grants for the enhancement of various hunter education, firearm safety, and range programs, including the construction and development of firearm shooting ranges and the updating of safety features of firearm shooting ranges. For States that have used the funds apportioned to them for hunter safety program and the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges, this same grant money is apportioned among the States and used to make grants to the States for any use authorized by the Pittman-Robertson Act, including hunter safety programs and the construction, operation, and maintenance of public target ranges.

The Sheriff in my area has full-time employees who do nothing but research and apply for Federal grant money which he uses to help fund his department. If the Feds were to put conditions regarding the national recognition, that might cause some issues.

And yes, I am one who dislikes and completely distrusts the way our government has violated damn near everything in place to control its growth and power over us................

 

[X-Rap]

To say that there is no Federal Funding that can be attached to this issue is a bit Pollyannish, I can't think of a single issue in which the feds don't hold money over states heads and usually it's money that should have never seen Washington in the first place don't see national carry evolving any other way.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, now that's a possibility. Pittman-Robertson funds at least have some gun-ish tie.

 

[Red Wind]

In NJ you just can't move to another county and hope to get a carry permit like residents in NY State or California can.

In NJ you can move to any county within the state and the chances of getting a permit is still remains zero. The same goes for Maryland and Hawaii.

Three states remain effectively off limits for getting a carry permit.

Well put. I don't believe I've seen the scenario for those 3 ultra anti-gun states explained in a better manner.

You are truly against the wall trying to get a carry permit in those 3 kingdoms unless you are among the select anointed ones.

Being born in New Jersey, I can only thank my wise parents for getting out and escaping to Florida in 1947 while I was still a tot. A debt I was never able to totally repay.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Absolutely not!

I am personally unconvinced on the matter of a national carry law. I'd rather see the SCOTUS decide in our favor. And I personally believe both possibilities to be a stretch of optimism past reasonable limits.

But I am surprised sometimes at both the optimism and confusion and obstreperousness of many folks on "our" side about efforts to this end.

Neither confusion or obstreperousness are productive in succeeding at any endeavor to make beneficial progress in our society. Even if success is doubtful, people projecting an optimistic attitude are more likely to succeed than people claiming to be realistic or outright pessimistic. There is no downside to optimism if you don't allow you happiness to be overly reliant on the the success of an effort. I have been working on writing letters to a few magazines and legislators. I am realistic enough to realize that they will be just a few of the countless letters these people receive, but optimistic that they have more chance of being successful in influencing change than no letters at all. You have to at least show up for the game if you are going to have any chance of winning.

Red Wind - You are truly against the wall trying to get a carry permit in those 3 kingdoms unless you are among the select anointed ones.

Perhaps the only chance the subjects of those 3 "kingdoms" have of gaining the rights citizens of other States have is by using a Federal NRCL trebuchet to batter down the walls erected by the leaders in control of those "kingdoms". Once the walls are breached it will be much easier for RKBA supporters to have demands met for more gun freedoms.

 

[Praxidike]

Worth noting that the ploertha of realistic and outright pessimistic gun owners you're referring to do not want a "Federal NRCL" regardless if it could pass or not.

Also based on the cases we've won in DC, Illinois, and California, I'd say that people who live in NJ, MD, and HI have a better and faster chance of enjoying carry rights based on existing precedent vs sinking funds and resources into NRCL.

 

[CoalTrain49]

W

what money is needed to accept an out-of-state concealed carry license?

Actually, none.

But we are talking about the carrot or the stick here to get the states to accept nat'l reciprocity. If you employ the stick (withholding funds) there would have to be some funds in a bill to begin with, which there aren't, which Sam1911 is trying to get us to understand. Holding a budget hostage is a very poor tactical maneuver that eventually ends up being political suicide for the ones responsible. That's a tactic of a do nothing congress and folks are getting real sick of it.

There never will be funds attached to a nat'l reciprocity bill so there never will be a carrot. The fed is broke. They don't have enough money for nat'l defense so money to states for nat'l reciprocity is a dream. Most voters don't give a hoot in he!! about nat'l reciprocity and there won't be any money in any bill to entice the states to play ball.

Just looking at it from a realist perspective. If you don't believe me just call your congressman to see if he would be interested in sponsoring such a bill with a do or die funding requirement.

 

[Nom de Forum]

It is the fear of the imaginary threat a National Right to Carry Law would create that opponents will use as a tactic to defeat it. Any threat by supporters to support it before passage is doomed to failure because it will have the same result as pouring gasoline on a fire. Please, no suggestion of “sticks” only “carrots”. I believe that only by making our opponents appear to voters, legislators, and judges, as being unreasonably fearful and insultingly paternalistic will we succeed.

 

[CoalTrain49]

5 states have permitless concealed carry. They have totally done away with a requirement for anyone (even travelers) to have a permit to carry concealed. There is also no federal code that requires a person to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. So 5 states and the federal gov't see no need to have a permit to CC. By promoting a NRCL you have acquiesced to the idea that one should have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. You have now become an advocate for a permit to carry even though you want all states to recognize a permit from any state.

I guess at some point I would be asking myself why a NRCL is necessary if the fed and 5 states don't require a permit. In essence you are asking congress to pass legislation to deal with permits when they don't require one to begin with. With regards to everything they do require through federal law such as highway standards they take an active interest to coerce states to follow their standards. In this case they have none and no federal money is being doled out to help states maintain any standards. It is my understanding that in order for the fed to have any interest in a NRCL they would first have to have a standard by which the states should comply. Someone somewhere is going to get the idea that if people start pushing for NRCL that maybe there should be federal law that regulates concealed carry. All of the states would have to comply and you can say goodbye to permitless carry because it would be against federal law. That's how you get states to universally accept all permits.

This is not a good idea based on that one thing alone. This train is on the wrong track and heading in the wrong direction.