National CCW, why not? Plus other stuff

Ok maybe I've had a few to many drinks, but I just saw the 60 minutes story on active shooters and both the NYC and DC police commissioner Basically said the active shooters time needs to be limited for them to kill. Also, the DC commissioner said, if anyone had the ability to take out the shooter they should. This being a new stance for law enforcement. This got me thinking........

1. None of them are talking about people defending themselves properly, they want me to take out an active shooter with what, my safety scissors? The average police response time is 5-7 minutes and the active shooters are usual done in 10, lets do some math huh.

2. And now the reason for my title, why not an National CCW? I bet Maryland has some of the strictest requirements for a permit, so if someone can fulfill the requirements why not be nationally certified to carry. I don't mean just in spirit but for real, no gun free zones, no fed building restrictions, you can carry PERIOD. If you can jump through the hoops and basically be certified as one of the guys who "knows what you are doing" why not have you carry at all times and be one of the responses to an active shooter.

Like I said above, the maybe it's to many drinks but things are different. There are evil people in the world and they seem to be recruiting more to help them. To think my loved ones safety is being hindered makes me incredibly angry.

I am a school teacher and my son is in kindergarten. I often think and become concerned about how we could protect the kids under our care. So many counties have made progress but in Maryland, NOTHING.

I need to get off the soap box, have fun it's this one. Stay safe. TD

I am totally sober and I thought the same thing. I couldn't believe the things they were saying with a straight face.

Ok, the Wayback Machine was set to six months ago...

They actually said just about everything possible without coming out and saying that everyone should have a gun. "People need to be taught how to protect themselves and not just run" was more or less the quote that I remember.

The problem is with a national ccw we would be at the whim of a congress that could change like the wind perhaps even worse than our beloved state.

Do I want congress in the business of licensing gun carry? Aw hell no.

But congress could affirm national right to carry (shall issue) and reciprocity. Then leave it up to the states to license, including constitutional carry.

danb said:

Do I want congress in the business of licensing gun carry? Aw hell no.

But congress could affirm national right to carry (shall issue) and reciprocity. Then leave it up to the states to license, including constitutional carry.

Click to expand...

I like that alot. How to we proceed

Reciprocity trumps a national right, as there would remain states where citizens could exercise their right to keep and bear. As more states come on line with Shall Issue and Constitutional Carry, and as threats multiply and are seen to be effectively handled by CCW permit holders, momentum will build.

If Illinois can become a Shall Issue state, Maryland can, as well. I have a dream . . .

Anything Congress gives, it can take away....

Bob A said:

Reciprocity trumps a national right, as there would remain states where citizens could exercise their right to keep and bear. As more states come on line with Shall Issue and Constitutional Carry, and as threats multiply and are seen to be effectively handled by CCW permit holders, momentum will build.

If Illinois can become a Shall Issue state, Maryland can, as well. I have a dream . . .

Click to expand...

This exactly.

miles71 said:

Ok maybe I've had a few to many drinks, but I just saw the 60 minutes story on active shooters and both the NYC and DC police commissioner Basically said the active shooters time needs to be limited for them to kill. Also, the DC commissioner said, if anyone had the ability to take out the shooter they should. This being a new stance for law enforcement. This got me thinking........

1. None of them are talking about people defending themselves properly, they want me to take out an active shooter with what, my safety scissors? The average police response time is 5-7 minutes and the active shooters are usual done in 10, lets do some math huh.

2. And now the reason for my title, why not an National CCW? I bet Maryland has some of the strictest requirements for a permit, so if someone can fulfill the requirements why not be nationally certified to carry. I don't mean just in spirit but for real, no gun free zones, no fed building restrictions, you can carry PERIOD. If you can jump through the hoops and basically be certified as one of the guys who "knows what you are doing" why not have you carry at all times and be one of the responses to an active shooter.

Like I said above, the maybe it's to many drinks but things are different. There are evil people in the world and they seem to be recruiting more to help them. To think my loved ones safety is being hindered makes me incredibly angry.

I am a school teacher and my son is in kindergarten. I often think and become concerned about how we could protect the kids under our care. So many counties have made progress but in Maryland, NOTHING.

I need to get off the soap box, have fun it's this one. Stay safe. TD

Click to expand...

The democrat way. Make a statement and give no way of executing the statement.

"Free college for everyone." How?

kenpo333 said:

The problem is with a national ccw we would be at the whim of a congress that could change like the wind perhaps even worse than our beloved state.

Click to expand...

danb said:

Do I want congress in the business of licensing gun carry? Aw hell no.

But congress could affirm national right to carry (shall issue) and reciprocity. Then leave it up to the states to license, including constitutional carry.

Click to expand...

I agree with both of you, but I will take my chances. It is very difficult to put the toothpaste back into the tube after you squeeze it out. Can you imagine taking gun rights away from Texans?

montoya32 said:

The democrat way. Make a statement and give no way of executing the statement.

"Free college for everyone." How?





I agree with both of you, but I will take my chances. It is very difficult to put the toothpaste back into the tube after you squeeze it out. Can you imagine taking gun rights away from Virginians?

Click to expand...

FIFY

Texas is actually not the most gun friendly of these 57 United States....

Thank heavens for LEOSA. I feel sorry for all the law abiding subjects of Maryland who cannot carry no matter how honest or safe that are. Maryland and liberals suck. Concealed carry should be the law of the land for all Americans. American lives matter. The right to defend yourself is above all others.

montoya32 said:

The democrat way. Make a statement and give no way of executing the statement.

"Free college for everyone." How?





I agree with both of you, but I will take my chances. It is very difficult to put the toothpaste back into the tube after you squeeze it out. Can you imagine taking gun rights away from Texans?

Click to expand...

My basic issue is that Congress does nothing effectively. I dont want to mess with constitutional carry. As a compromise to get 60 senators on board, I see Congress setting national minimum standards for licensing. No way.

The best Congress can do constitutionally IMO is pass one of the reciprocity bills currently sitting in committee. The courts would have to fix the may/no issue states so their citizens have a means to carry one way or another.

As noted, many prior national reciprocity bills have maintained a state's right to set CCW laws, so that doesn't help us in the short term, as MD can retain it's may issue scheme. What will help is pressure on the GA to change MD law when residents of other states can carry in MD while we stand by helplessly and can't carry. That's how National reciprocity can help us.

National licensing should be a total non starter IMO.

National reciprosity w/o any input over minium standards to issue, and no provision for any State to opt out.

Biggfoot44 said:

National reciprosity w/o any input over minium standards to issue, and no provision for any State to opt out.

Click to expand...

The current bills do technically have an out which is a ban on CCW. I don't see any states doing this.

Stoveman said:

FIFY

Texas is actually not the most gun friendly of these 57 United States....

Click to expand...

Yep. True.

And I see what you did there.

Next time congress renews the national homeland defense bill or some other bill

if the agenda was pushed they could attach conditions on grants and funding sting that any state that infringes upon the constitutional rights of its citizens to engage in personal self defense via not respecting a citizens right to constitutional carry or an concealed carry permit system blah blah blah including .......... would be restricted from accessing these grant dollars.

States that engage in allowing arbitrary or unfair issuance of concealed carry permits via the may issue system are view by congress as infringing on a private citizens right to travel and defend ones self, family and property. any state still using such a system will not be eligible to apply for homeland security grants


a whole list could probably be constructed where congress declares that a state violating private law-abiding citizens rights with firearms purchasing restrictions in excess of the parameters and system in the NFA. will not be able to apply for federal police department grants


States that in congresses view infringe on citizens 2nd amendment civil right by attempting to restrict access to lead ammo or the use of lead outside of the current federal migratory bird restrictions for hunting or other recreational purposes will not be eligible to receive Federal grants for state parks projects


the list is endless, the battle might be able to be waged legislatively by having congress attach these restrictions on funding. it wouldn’t infringe on states rights to govern themselves but it would be a strong statement of congresses view of constitutional infringements, statements by congress and funding restrictions. even if congress changes 2 years later and the new congress removes those conditions on funding the reaction time by a state to reimplement the restrictions, then the court challenges etc it’d create an interesting scenario. Well the congressional record shows just two years ago that congress acknowledged that citizens had a right to xyz and that states were specifically told ....now that congress isn’t financially pinching you state (fill in the blank) please feel free to explain why it is no longer the case and why you are re-instituting what congress and you agreed two years ago was an infringement

Much like the drinking age some states might fight it others might come into line... the statements by congress on the record declaring certain definitions of infringements and civil rights might also be a tool for us later