As a gun owner I would go along with this.

[MIddle Man]

A national license to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the country. The same way my state issued drivers license allows me to drive a car in all 50 states. All I have to do is take the test, pass it and be issued my license. No local restrictions would apply to me because I would have my license. I am specifically talking about carrying a concealed weapon. I would take a test for that.

Depending on where you live now, it is possible to carry in at least 37 states now anyway, you just need a resident license and then 1 or 2 out of state non-resident licenses, like the one in Florida.

So write up your test and I will take it. Does that idea get any traction with anti-gun folks?

[CO Liberal]

1. The One Potential Problem I See.....

...is that a national license program would require a database to administer it, and many pro-gunners would object to that because that would lead to confiscation.

But it might be an idea worth pursuing.

[MIddle Man]

2. Yes it is

I hate the database crap on all levels (familiarity breeds contempt) Rest assured there is a database for Pro and anti-abortion types too. What I have come to realize is I am ALREADY in a lot of those databases. The FBI is all over the web, so the hell with it.

But I am talking carry in all 50 states, and in cities that ban CCW now. So while a local sheep may not have the right to carry I do because I have the license. I think in all reality a license like this is the only way you would get everyone on the same page. But it would be optional. You dont have to get it, you can still just get a local carry permit.

My dream, some day all the anti-gun folks will say "you know what, since we don't really know squat about guns, lets go talk with gun owners. And Ms. Fienstein, no more of this saying ban all guns stuff" That really polarizes gun owners when people say ban all guns, it is just like saying ban abortion. That is why so many dems cross over and vote for pro-gun candidates regardless of party. You would be surprised how much the NRA could do if they felt they did not have to fight gun bans. But even the UN wants to ban private gun ownership world wide.

Take guns and abortion/medical procedures off the political tables and maybe we can get back to fixing real problems, like public schools. A well educated kid typically does not knock up 5 women and steal guns and commit crime, because he thinks he has a future.

[Withergyld]

3. I would go for this if...

the fee was $75 or less and the permit covered any handgun you owned. I am a class 3 FFL so there is no doubt I have firearms. :tinfoilhat:

[MIddle Man]

4. Cost is an issue

Often fees are made to high on something like this, to reduce the number who can afford it. As you know.

Just curious, is a class III open to home inspection?

[Withergyld]

5. yes and no

As a class 3 FFL(Collector of Curio and Relic), if the ATF would like to conduct an inspection I have two choices:
1. Arrange a time for them to come to my home and inspect.
2. Arrange to meet with the agent at the nearest ATF office and bring the entire collection and my bound book.

[MIddle Man]

6. Thanks

for the info.

I have never been into the C&R game, but I like what I see these days classifed as C&R, so maybe. I have considered a class 2 so I can easily ship lowers if I get into coating and refinishing more (teflon molly coat etc)

[DoNotRefill]

8. Just to clarify...

a C&R license is a TYPE 3 license, it does NOT entitle a person to deal in class 3 weapons. A C&R FFL can receive a C&R class 3 weapon (NOT a standard Class 3 weapon, only C&Rs)interstate, tax paid, for personal use only, but must go through the standard class 3 purchase procedure, including CLEO sign-off.

This differs from the true "Class 3 dealer's license", which is a Type 1 license with a SOT attachment, or a "Class 2 Manufacturer's license", which is a Type 2 license with an 07 SOT attachment.

Confusing enough for you?

When I grow up, I want a Type 10 license... :)

[iverglas]

9. and what happened to those fabled states' rights?

"But I am talking carry in all 50 states, and in cities that ban CCW now. So while a local sheep may not have the right to carry I do because I have the license. I think in all reality a license like this is the only way you would get everyone on the same page. But it would be optional. You dont have to get it, you can still just get a local carry permit."

Might I presume that firearms licensing -- and where and how the carrying of firearms is permitted -- is a matter properly under state jurisdiction in the US?

Why this sudden impulse for the federal government to do something which I must assume is outside its jurisdiction: regulate firearms in such a way as to override more restrictive valid state/municipal regulation?

Do the "newbies" think no one will notice?

.

[MrBenchley]

10. Never mind that voters have rejected this

and that the rationale for concealed carry has been shown to be a pseudoscientific fraud bankrolled by the gun industry.

[DoNotRefill]

11. One major problem with it being a police power...

is the Full Faith and Credit clause. Imagine the chaos that would result if marriage licenses weren't recognized from one state to another, and married people in one state were arrested for cohabitation if they moved to another state.

I'm trying to think of ANY other court order that isn't automatically recognized by other states...restraining orders are, criminal convictions are, civil judgments are, marriage license are, property titles are, even parking tickets are. Why aren't CCW permits?

[happyslug]

12. Basicly , firearms have always been an exception to the FFCC Clause.

Basically, a permit to carry is permission from your state (or County or City whatever issued the Permit) to carry an otherwise illegal item.

The Full Faith and Credit clause (FFCC), on the other hand, has been one of the most hated of all clauses in the US Constitution. Technically it can be used to force ALL states to comply with a law only one state wants (for example the recent ruling on Gay Marriage in Vermont). Given this ability the Courts have had problems with it from the first day of Ratification of the Constitution. Mark Twain in "Huckleberry Finn" mention the FFCC when Huck's father complains how a free black man can operate in Missouri for three months before Missouri could sell him into slavery. (In Missouri from 1820-1865 it was illegal to be a free black. If a black man from another state went into Missouri, Missouri had to give Full Faith and Credit to the fact the Black was a freeman in his home state. Missouri could not grab him and sell him, as permitted by Missouri law of the time period, till he was a resident of Missouri, i.e. after three months in the state.) Missourian hated to have to wait to sell such free blacks but had to under the Full Faith and Credit Clause(FFCC).

This dislike of the FFCC grew after 1865 and the raise of Labor. It increased after the Palmer raids of 1919. Why should we give FFCC to such CCW when we would NOT have granted such a CCW? The Courts started to view the "Police Power" as excempt from FFCC and since CCW was issued by Police Departments, the FFCC did not apply. The Court’s rationale was simple, a CCW was HOW you operated in the State it was issued in, it was NOT a property right for example a Marriage License, or Deed, or Will etc (The Supreme Court has always preferred to deal with property rights more than any other right). Since without a CCW, it would have been criminal to carry a pistol, a CCW was NOT a property right but a police regulation and as such NOT under FFCC.

Around the same time period (1900-1920 when most state’s laws as to firearms first appear on the books) there seem to be a similar move as to Automobiles, but since more rich people owned cars than poor people, the State Legislatures decided to recognize each other licences and regulations of Automobiles. This was expanded by the Federal Government during WWI and during the 1920s as an alternative to the railroad system. The Federal Government again expanded its role as to the Automobile during the Great Depression and WWII. Since the passage of the Interstate Highway Act under Eisenhower, for all practical matters operations of Vehicles on Public Roads have been a Federal matter. You will hear that it is a "State matter", but when push comes to shove, the Feds get their way. The states want the Federal Highway Money more than they want to retain the ability to regulate automobiles. Thus the Courts do sometime mentioned the FFCC when hearing cases involving Automobiles, but given the almost complete regulation of Automobiles by the Department of Transportation, the states have very little maneuver room to do anything the Department of Transportation does not let them do.

As to firearms, no such Federal Agency has stepped in to do the same for Firearms, thus the Courts view Firearms possession as a “Police Matter” and as “Police Matters” are reserved to the states, each state may or may not recognize another state’s CCW. Now the GOP has said they would pass a requirement that all states recognize all other states CCW, but this seems more as a way for the GOP to raise money and votes than to actually pass such a bill. The NRA would like to have such a law passed, but the GOP just likes the votes and money its produces saying they want to pass it.

[DoNotRefill]

13. And THAT, my friend, pisses me off.

"The Full Faith and Credit clause (FFCC), on the other hand, has been one of the most hated of all clauses in the US Constitution. Technically it can be used to force ALL states to comply with a law only one state wants (for example the recent ruling on Gay Marriage in Vermont)."

I don't like part of the Constitution being ignored, regardless of HOW unpopular it is. If it's so unpopular, amend the constitution and have it removed. Don't ignore it. Ignoring it cheapens the rest of it.

(BTW, just for the sake of clarity, I'm not pissed at you, I'm pissed at the ignoring of the Constitution...)

[DoNotRefill]

7. Why?

Simply have the FBI run a standard background record check on them, with fingerprints and the whole enchilada.

There wouldn't have to be a new database, just a note in the existing database that a permit was issued.

The database is already there...it's just a matter of utilizing it in a VOLUNTARY manner (you don't volunteer, you don't get a permit...I would object to using it to manditorily record all purchases, etc.)