It’s the same test all over the country, and the test is reciprocal. You only have to pass it once, and let each state know when and where you took it so that they can verify with the testing agency. The paperwork is different, but asks the same questions. Attach your college transcripts, a couple of references, and you’re good to go. Oh yeah, don’t forget that fee (it varies, but $300 is typical, not counting the fee to take the test).
To clarify for others, we’re talking about Professional Engineer licenses here.
I’ve always been a believer that legislation should be tailored to the need, to the extent reasonably possible.
For an unrelated example, I can see the logic of a reduced tax rate for capital gains when we’re talking about raising capital for a new business. But if I buy shares of Amazon, and sell them after they go up, why should my income from that capital gain be advantaged relative to other forms of income? If you’re going to have any tax preference at all for capital gains, it should be focused on the need.
Same here. You’re advocating a sweeping solution to a fairly limited problem.
In the latter example, it stuns me to find that possession of a handgun without a license is a crime punishable by “many years behind bars.” That strikes me as wildly disproportionate to the offense - ‘offense’ because ‘crime’ seems like too strong a word. ISTM that the NRA, with its clout, would have no problem mobilizing against such draconian laws regarding gun possession. (They - quite effectively - work to change state gun laws all the time, so this would hardly be a reach for them.) And for once in my life, I’d be cheering them on.
In the former example, how hard is it to get a concealed-carry license in a state where you don’t live, but you do have business, whether job-related or personal business? If it’s really too heavy a lift, then again, I’m sure the NRA could lobby to make it easier.
But turning a concealed-carry permit in any one state into a nationwide permit seems to be a rather sweeping solution that goes far beyond the limited problems it claims to address.
Well, Vermont, no, but I can imagine that some states might be happy to provide nonresidents with a CCW with nearly as little effort as becoming an ordained minister with the Universal Life Church, for no other reason than the principle of it and to collect $50 per non-resident application.
What’s more, nothing in the legislation limits states from becoming CCW mills. Since these proposed bills generally seek to override some states’ laws to one degree or another, do you think there also should be a national standard on the minimum requirements for a CCW?
No, but I’d be open to changing my mind if someone can demonstrate significant differences in outcomes between stringent-CCW-requirement states and lax-CCW-requirement states.
But state law can prohibit carry on state-owned property. And in general the states own the streets either directly or through the cities or other subdivision which they control, don’t they? So I’d think a state could prohibit concealed carry on its streets.
I somewhat regularly work in MD and DC, and sometimes in not-so-great areas. How hard is it to get a carry permit in those two jurisdictions? If you really don’t know, it’s virtually impossible for either residents or someone living somewhere else. Same goes for NY, NJ and other states.
Yeah, I know what the court said. But I also know what the words “keep” and “bear” mean. I’m thankful Heller ended up the way it did, but it didn’t go far enough.
Well, the court decides what’s a constitutional right, so like I said above, it’s not a sturdy girding for an argument.
Is there a term for someone one wishes to be a constitutional right, while acknowledging that it isn’t one at the present time? If not, there should be.
That doesn’t make it a right, so long as we’re clear on that. People throw fits when people litter, doesn’t make littering laws unconstitutional.
Or, come to Kentucky. I see open carry here all the time, never seen anyone given shit over it.
Sure. I don’t think anyone’s trying to use the outcome of Peruta (it’s not even certain that SCOTUS will take the case) to justify this law. It’s an idea that’s been around for a long time. Here is an article on a 57-43 Senate vote from 2013.
There’s nothing radical at all about the quoted passage. That is there to specifically encompass people living in 13 states who don’t need to get a resident permit. If they don’t need one in their state, they don’t need to get a permit to please the other states.
I could be wrong, but Maine, Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming, Alaska, Vermont, and Missouri do not require permits to carry concealed, and Vermont won’t even let you get one if you wanted it, so if there is forced reciprocity with those states, using the language of the house bill that, as I understand it, says that you only have to carry the documentation that you would need in your home state, then all states would have to accept them.
Also,
Now, I fully admit that I may be misunderstanding these things, bu it does in fact seem that at the very least Virginia, and most likely Vermont, and I think the other states as well will not require a background check before you can take your concealed gun out of the state under this bill.
While I will agree that it is silly that he got into trouble for not notifying the last cop on the scene, I feel that that is more an issue of police overstepping their authority than a problem with the law. The way I see it, he was in full compliance with the law when he told the first cop. If there is an issue with the way the law is written that allows the police to abuse their authority in this was, then maybe that language should be addressed, but that does not mean that the bill should be scrapped.
It’s been bandied about as compromise fodder (say, universal carry and universal background checks in the same law) for years.
The House version applies different rules for different people in the state (eg, in Kentucky you can’t carry in bars, in Kansas you can. Under the House bill, a Kansan could come to Kentucky and carry in a bar, but the locals couldn’t), and thus effectively bars a state from determining where (other than state gov’t buildings) people can carry, or who gets to carry. Stripping the states of their general police power like this is quite radical. I’ve heard plenty of universal carry proposals in my day (as said above, it’s been talked about), but none that just bulldozed the states like this, they were all like the Senate version (nonresidents are treated as though they had the local state permit).
ETA: If you want to come to Kentucky, you damn well better “please” us by obeying our laws.
I’ve never needed a fire extinguisher either, but I keep one in the garage, inside the house, and in my car or truck. Same with a first aid kit. I’ve a few items now that I think about it, that I don’t really want to use, but they are pretty damn handy to have when required. Dog spray. Bear spray when in bear country. Hell, even jjmper cables. Ya pays yer money and take yer chances.
The juxtaposition of your views on states having no say in Federal legislation on the police powers of their jurisdiction, but your complaint about the Federal government changing the designation of Federal lands as an obscene violation of states’ rights, is hard to square.