We need to start demanding more from Republicans aside from just the judges they confirm. Otherwise, every Democrat administration will erode our right a little more each time, while we have to be satisfied with merely trying to preserve the status quo in Republican administrations.
That’s why a priority of any future Republican president when there is also control of Congress should be the creation of an optional federal concealed carry permit. The permit should be valid anywhere in the country, and also allow the holder to ignore state-level “sensitive places” laws, except for places that have security at entrances.
This would be a huge boon to those of us who live in hostile states who constantly have to fight and defend every inch. And if we really want to have fun with this idea, the holder of such a permit should be able to ignore the National Firearms Act as to SBRs and suppressors, and state prohibitions on them.
Most of the opposition I’ve heard to this comes from those who balk at the creation of a federal permit, and they instead call for nationwide constitutional carry. If we can get that passed, great and my idea would be moot. But I’m writing from a perspective of national reciprocity not being politically feasible. Even a federal carry permit is a longshot, but it’s just on the outer edge of what’s possible.
You can tell also from the opposition to the idea who’s enjoying red state freedoms and doesn’t have to deal with constant assaults on their Second Amendment rights. That, however is a big mistake.
Maybe if you live in Wyoming or West Virginia you’re probably in good shape long term, but many formerly red states are now fighting off massive gun control efforts. Virginia is one governor away and Arizona is a few seats away. Michigan and Minnesota are both passing more and more restrictions, too.
Fears that a federal permit could be abused in the future are certainly valid, but they can make those abuses happen anyway, whether or not a federal permit exists.
To be clear, I’m not proposing the federal license would be a requirement. If you have a state permit or live in a constitutional carry state and don’t want to get the federal permit, great. A federal carry permit would primarily benefits those of us who live under constant harassment in anti-gun states with high fees, long wait times, and broad “sensitive places” laws. The benefit of a federal permit to those who live in red states would be the ability to carry anywhere in the country when traveling, as well as bypassing the NFA as to SBRs and suppressors.
Will this happen soon? Probably not. But it’s something we can work toward.
Konstadinos Moros is an Associate Attorney with Michel & Associates, a law firm in Long Beach that regularly represents the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) in its litigation efforts to restore the Second Amendment in California. You can find him on his Twitter handle @MorosKostas. To donate to CRPA or become a member, visit https://crpa.org/.
This post was adapted by SNW from tweets posted by Konstadinos Moros.
7 Responses
Seems to be a reasonable natural progression. Since there is a push for mandatory “universal background checks” then it is only reasonable that an optional Federal concealed carry permit would be available for those so desiring.
“universal background checks” has nothing to do with permitting for carry.
“universal background checks” is about eventual confiscation, and the left wing has already said as much. So I’m not willing to give them “universal background checks” to get a ‘Federal concealed carry permit’ to do what is already a right to do under the 2A. I mean, when you see the slogan “The Second Amendment is my permit.” its just not trying to be cute, it actually is your ‘permit’ and its only the desire for control by government and invented legal wrangling driven by, essentially, racism at its roots that makes it the way it is today.
Beat me to it. I have nothing to add to what you’ve already stated on my behalf.
“Even a federal carry permit is a longshot, but it’s just on the outer edge of what’s possible.”
Bullshit, just request a national federal carry permit, and when denied, file a federal lawsuit demanding a federal carry permit.
A driver’s license is valid in every state and territory, so should my right to travel armed…
EDIT –
“Konstadinos Moros is an Associate Attorney with Michel & Associates, a law firm in Long Beach that regularly represents the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) in its litigation efforts to restore the Second Amendment in California.”
Mr. Moros is obviously a fully-qualified and licensed lawyer in the state of California interested in defending the Second Ammendment, why isn’t he doing as I suggested and suing for his and everyone else’s fundamental right to keep and bear arms?
Mr. Moros, what do you have to say in reply?
We already have a ‘federal carry permit’ for concealed. Those who qualify under the federal LEOSA have what is essentially a ‘federal carry permit’. And even though the federal law makes it valid in all 50 states, Democrat controlled states still refuse to accept it and/or further restrict.
The issue is not ‘not’ having a ‘federal carry permit’ or even nationwide constitutional carry. The issue is that even if we had a nationwide ‘federal carry permit’ or even nationwide constitutional carry that was for all, that Democrat controlled states, like they did with their Bruen responses, would still refuse to accept it or hinder it despite the federal law, or even SCOTUS decision, making it valid. So overall, the main issue is unconstitutional acting rouge Democrat controlled governments in states and until those Marxist Soci -alist governments get reigned in or removed from power it would never be a true nationwide ‘federal carry permit’ to carry in all states or even a true nationwide constitutional carry and we would still have basically what we have now.
@ .40 cal Booger: did you mean “rogue” Democrat vs rouge Democrat?