# NRA Seeking Universal Concealed Carry Permit Law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 24, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886 "2014-04-24T20:18:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2014, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/61 "2014-04-29T02:59:44Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Some people thin the flaws might be more global than individual state laws. They think that the right to carry might be much broader than some states may allow. > > [Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#.22Safe_Passage.22_provision) I’m not following you. What point are you making here? ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/62 "2014-04-30T01:18:44Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > And contrary to what the left would have you believe, “rights” and “privilege” are not the same thing. Not just the left. Virtually all lovers of the US Constitution are like that. Suppose that there was an amendment to the US Constitution reading as follows: > [@](#): > > A mobile population being necessary to the welfare of a free State, the right of the people to own motor vehicles, and drive them, shall not be infringed. What would change? Well, I think it’s pretty obvious that, after the amendment takes effect, driving would have switched from being a privilege to a right. So, if the courts follow the law, we could no longer infringe on the rights of people with lots of DUI convictions, and the violent mentally ill, to drive. And yet those are the same class of limitations on gun ownership that most supposed second amendment supporters favor. Everyone wants gun ownership to be a privilege rather than a right. But not everyone admits it 😉 If the US Constitution is a necessary attribute of a free society, why it is that the British courts declared the slaves of Virginia – at least those with masters foolish (or decent) enough to take them to England – to be free in 1772? If I was a Pennsylvania resident when Lord Mansfield freed England’s slaves (and nine years earlier, when the Proclamation Line declaration promised better adherence to treaties with the natives), I would have been so proud to be an Englishman. And therefore, a few years later, I would have been so disgusted with those founding fathers, so careless of human life, whom you fellows treat almost as Gods. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/63 "2014-04-30T04:07:10Z")
I think everyone who takes a gun safety course and demonstrates that they know how to load and unload, shoot, clean, and care for their device, and can pass a written and practical test on using their gun in a responsible manner should be issued a license for it. The NRA local orgs themselves keep listings of many such courses and do a good referring people to them, last time I had reason to know. I don’t know why the fuck they would have issue with the notion that gun ownership and licensing should require that kind of testing prior to licensing. I favor “shall issue” laws. I oppose any reference whatsoever to psychiatric diagnosis (any freaking person can get a psych dx, they are handed out like candy to satisfy insurance company requirements, without which you can’t get counseling that insurance will reimburse). But honestly I don’t see a compelling reason why the average person needs concealed carry. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/64 "2014-04-30T13:17:42Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > So, if the courts follow the law, we could no longer infringe on the rights of people with lots of DUI convictions, and the violent mentally ill, to drive. False. Felony convictions or an adjudication of insanity have always been held to involve a forfeiture of rights, yes for guns too. ETA: and ignoring cars for the moment, people DO have a generally recognized right to travel. Such things as travel papers and internal passports are held to be unconstitutional in the US on general principle, even though afaik the Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention them. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 30, 2014, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/65 "2014-04-30T16:55:21Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > No there isn’t. Wisconsin, for example, is not a member of the National Drivers Compact. Any traffic cites (other than criminal traffic offenses) received in another state will not result in demerit points on a Wisconsin drivers record. And any fines not paid in another state will not result in a suspended Wisconsin license. > > Yet I can legally drive all over the country on my WI DL as long as I don’t permanently moved outside the state. So why does California honor driver’s licenses from other states? Is it because the requirements are similar enough that they feel comfortable honoring those licenses or is it because theya re legally compelled to by the “full faith & credit” and the “privileges & immunities” clauses? > [@AHunter3](#): > > But honestly I don’t see a compelling reason why the average person needs concealed carry. I don’t know that people are insisting that everyone be able to carry concealed so much as they are insisting that every must be able to carry (open or concealed). ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/66 "2014-05-01T00:01:28Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > I think everyone who takes a gun safety course and demonstrates that they know how to load and unload, shoot, clean, and care for their device, and can pass a written and practical test on using their gun in a responsible manner should be issued a license for it. In other words, you regard gun carrying as a privilege to be earned and not a right. Just like all but the most extreme gun controllers 😃 > [@Lumpy](#): > > Felony convictions or an adjudication of insanity have always been held to involve a forfeiture of rights, yes for guns too. The second amendment was intended as a limitation on the federal government, not on states. And, AFAIK, the US Congress, in the period of the founders, did not take away guns rights from those legally declared insane, nor did they take them away from felons. If I am wrong, please indulge my curiosity by letting me know. But if I am wrong, so what? Doesn’t everyone agree that the Alien and Sedition Act (1798) was a plain violation of the first amendment? So we know the founding crowd was perfectly capable of violating their own Bill of Rights parchment promises. And if they did indeed infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, they would have been doing just that. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/67 "2014-05-01T02:06:35Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > In other words, you regard gun carrying as a privilege to be earned and not a right. Just like all but the most extreme gun controllers 😃 > > The second amendment was intended as a limitation on the federal government, not on states. And, AFAIK, the US Congress, in the period of the founders, did not take away guns rights from those legally declared insane, nor did they take them away from felons. If I am wrong, please indulge my curiosity by letting me know. > > But if I am wrong, so what? Doesn’t everyone agree that the Alien and Sedition Act (1798) was a plain violation of the first amendment? So we know the founding crowd was perfectly capable of violating their own Bill of Rights parchment promises. And if they did indeed infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, they would have been doing just that. You made an analogy suggesting that if something is considered a right than it would be absolutely beyond government intervention, leading to absurdities. This is patently false. None of the provisions of the Bill of Rights (or state constitutional equivalents) have ever been construed to recognize or bestow a boundless libertarian immunity from government interference. The point however is that a right cannot be infringed upon by the ordinary [police power](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power) of the government to proscribe things by statute. In general a right can only be infringed upon by a more [compelling interest](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_interest), which must be decided by the standard of [strict scrutiny](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny). For example, the Constitution recognizes freedom of assembly as a fundamental right. No one claims that this means that police can’t disperse unruly crowds, or that cities can’t require parade permits for demonstrations. But it means that the right of assembly is a right, not a privilege that the government can bestow or withdraw at will. What gun owners object to are laws that, to continue the analogy, are the equivalent of pre-defining all unauthorized public gatherings as riots. The gun debate apparently come down to this: gun control advocates believe that guns are just another item which the government can by statute ban or regulate-out-of-existence; while gun rights advocates believe that to own and carry weapons (“keep and bear arms”) is as fundamental a right as free speech. We live in a country today where the vast majority of people can go their entire lives without needing to resort to a gun, and may see no reason to. But there are strong historical precedents why possessing guns was regarded as both a right and a necessity of a free people. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/68 "2014-05-01T17:16:15Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > which must be decided by the standard of [strict scrutiny](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny). I thought violations of some of the rights were measured against intermediate or heigtened scrutiny. I suspect that the second amendment cases will apply heightened or intermediate scrutiny. Rational basis has never been applied to a constitutional right AFAICT. Strict scrutiny would throw out almost all gun laws, even ones that the NRA would probably support. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/69 "2014-05-01T17:55:18Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I’m a huge 2nd amendment supporter, but if you pass this law, you might as well say that the only gun laws in the country are the ones passed by the state with the weakest gun laws. I’m for that in principle, but not at the federal level. I agree with this 100%, and I’m very uncertain that such a measure is constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/70 "2014-05-01T19:00:57Z")
I doubt it’ll happen, because the support for the NRA comes mainly from conservatives, who are generally States Rightists. Of course, the national law against intact dilation and extraction (“partial birth abortion”) shows that they can get over this (and also over their dislike of abusing the Constitution’s commerce clause) when they really want to. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/71 "2014-05-01T19:26:31Z")
In my mine, this has nothing to do with the commerce clause or state’s rights. It’s about civil rights. Just as everyone enjoys free speech, they also enjoy the right to carry for self defense. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/72 "2014-05-01T19:30:48Z")
It’s an infringement on a state’s police power. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/73 "2014-05-01T20:20:18Z")
You’ll have to elaborate. The state has no police power to violate civil rights. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/74 "2014-05-01T21:59:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In my mine, this has nothing to do with the commerce clause or state’s rights. It’s about civil rights. Just as everyone enjoys free speech, they also enjoy the right to carry for self defense. OK, I’ll say clear of your mine. But it’s definitely about states’ rights. It may be defensible on constitutional grounds, but it’s still a states’ rights issue because it would remove a state’s ability to enforce certain kinds of laws, which they currently have and can enforce. It’s NOT a commerce clause issue, but that’s never stopped Congress from using it to pass legislation that would otherwise be unconstitutional! The case I cited above should be a pretty clear example: what do medical procedures have to do with interstate commerce? Yet that is the only constitutional basis for the law, according to the language of the law itself. (And a host of others, including many liberal ones – this trick is not limited to one party!) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/75 "2014-05-01T22:40:21Z")
My **mind** , damn typo. Once the 2nd was incorporated it was no longer an issue of state’s rights. Earlier in the thread \*\*Doors \*\*mentioned correctly that SCOTUS currently hasn’t recognized this right. However, the 7th and 9th circuits have recognized a right to carry (other circuits have not). In those jurisdictions, it is recognized as a civil right and has nothing at all to do with state’s rights. States are not permitted to violate fundamental incorporate civil rights. Each may currently have their own scheme, but all within those jurisdictions must provide for some form of carry. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/76 "2014-05-01T23:06:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s an infringement on a state’s police power. Is it? Is the Second incorporated against the states? Does the Second include a right to carry? ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2014, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/77 "2014-05-01T23:49:06Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > You made an analogy suggesting that if something is considered a right than it would be absolutely beyond government intervention, leading to absurdities. It doesn’t lead to absurdities because judges ignore the plain meaning of the platitudes. I don’t condemn them for this, and mostly bring it up because of annoyance at second amendment supporters who claim to be the true adherents of constitutional government, while everyone else is a scofflaw. I’m not a big Jefferson fan, but he was more honest than later Americans in being willing to admit that he was violating the Constitution when he did it: > **[The Constitution is not a suicide pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact)** > > "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people. It is most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, as a response to charges that he was violating the United States Constitution by suspending habeas corpus during the American Civil War. Although the phrase echoes statements made by Lincoln,... > [@](#): > > In 1803, Jefferson’s ambassadors to France arranged the purchase of the Louisiana territory in conflict with Jefferson’s personal belief that the Constitution did not bestow upon the federal government the right to acquire or possess foreign territory. Due to political considerations, however, Jefferson disregarded his constitutional doubts, signed the proposed treaty, and sent it to the Senate for ratification. In justifying his actions, he later wrote: “[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.” Of course, the Louisiana Purchase wasn’t required for self-preservation, but Jefferson was right that he was violating legal platitudes limiting federal power. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/78 "2014-05-02T01:26:07Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > OK, I’ll say clear of your mine. But it’s definitely about states’ rights. It may be defensible on constitutional grounds, but it’s still a states’ rights issue because it would remove a state’s ability to enforce certain kinds of laws, which they currently have and can enforce. Well, one hook could be that > [@](#): > > Congress shall have the power to…provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the militia, They use, a lot of commas in sentences that include the word militia. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2014, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886/79 "2014-05-02T02:06:24Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > It doesn’t lead to absurdities because judges ignore the plain meaning of the platitudes. I don’t condemn them for this, and mostly bring it up because of annoyance at second amendment supporters who claim to be the true adherents of constitutional government, while everyone else is a scofflaw. There’s ample evidence that as far as the 2nd Amendment goes, the federal and state governments _ **have** _ been scofflaws for over a century. The overwhelming impression one gets from researching the history of firearms and the law is that the Framers really did mean to recognize the private possession of weapons as a fundamental mark of freedom; [Our own Cecil came to much the same conclusion:](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1114/what-does-the-right-to-bear-arms-really-mean) > [@](#): > > However odd the notion strikes us today, the framers regarded private gun ownership as one of the pillars of their liberty > > \Put yourself in a gun owner’s shoes. While the first half of the Second Amendment is no miracle of clarity, the second half is about as plain as it can be: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But gun-control advocates deny this sentence means what it seems perfectly evident it says, and the courts have backed them up. Gun owners’ recognition that one of their most cherished rights has been interpreted out of existence accounts for the apocalyptic tone in which their arguments are often framed. > > \it seems pretty clear that’s what the founders intended, and it eats at the heart of the constitutional process to simply wave that right away. No one doubts today that slavery is bad, but the constitution as written permitted it, and a duly ratified amendment was required to put the matter right. Likewise we should concede that the Second Amendment means what it seems to mean and that if we want to control guns to the point of prohibition, amending the amendment is the honest thing to do. So what happened? Well apparently later governments simply began to regret the largess the Founders had bestowed and began to look for legalistic workarounds to justify it. This picked up steam after the Civil War when the powers that be realized that a fundamental freedom to keep and bear arms would have to include Negroes, immigrants, leftist radicals, poor people, striking workers and others whom the WASP majority simply didn’t trust with guns. The major breaking point was probably _Presser V. Illinois_, in 1886. A german immigrant, Herman Presser had organized an armed self-defense cadre to resist the armies of armed private security guards that were brutalizing strikers and protest marchers. He was convicted under Illinois law of forming an unsanctioned militia, despite his protests that this both violated his Second Amendment rights and elevated the Illinois State Guard- strictly limited in membership to selected trustworthy individuals- to a virtual state army in violation of the Constitution’s Compact Clause. The SCOTUS largely dodged these questions by reasserting it’s loathing of any attempt to incorporate the Bill of Rights under the 14th Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities clause. The subsequent legal history of guns in the USA follows a similar pattern: laws effectively restricting owning and carrying firearms were passed, and their legality was upheld by hair-splitting legalisms that payed lip service to the idea of the population at large being the “reserve militia”. The 1903 Militia Act and subsequent revisions essentially turned the Guards into a branch of the US Army Reserve. The 1934 National Firearms Act didn’t actually ban machine guns but threw expensive stamp taxes and regulations in the way of anyone who wanted to buy them. City ordinances beginning with the 1911 Sullivan Act in New York and later endorsed by “A Uniform Act to Regulate the Sale and Possession of Firearms” enshrined “May Issue” (=may arbitrarily refuse) carry permits as the national standard. Both “liberal” progressives and lawnorder conservatives pushed gun control, abetted by a public that largely saw gun restrictions as applying to “those people”. For example, when the Black Panthers vowed to resist police brutality by force and started carrying guns, the result was the swift passage in CA of restrictions on carry. In short, the liberty to own and carry went through a long, slow erosion similar to the shining ideals in the story “Animal Farm”; and this was actually praised by the “Living Constitution” school of legal thought, which held that the Constitution was “flexible” enough to accommodate almost any expediency. By the 1990s the situation had gotten to the point where one famous pro-gun analysis was titled “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” because any rational analysis of it’s history suggested a purpose completely at odds with the gun control agenda. The trend was only finally turned around by a growing distrust of the government and a general disappointment with ineffective anti-crime measures. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nra-seeking-universal-concealed-carry-permit-law/686886.md?page=3)