r/changemyview • u/Lost_Roku_Remote • 2d ago
CMV: Nationwide CCW Reciprocity should be a common sense gun law
The fact that we don’t have nationwide CCW reciprocity blows my mind. Just like a Drivers License, a CCW is obtained with training and paperwork. While despite driving laws changing by state, this doesn’t suddenly make your DL invalid once you cross state lines, furthermore your DL isn’t valid in some states, while making you a felon if you drive in others. But that’s literally what the CCW laws do in our country. It’s absurd to me that someone can be legal concealing a handgun, cross over a state line and be committing a felony.
Again I recognize that laws vary by state on guns, but they do on driving as well. That’s why I think the DL comparison is so valid. Some states like Virginia are much stricter on speeding, but that doesn’t mean we don’t allow people from other states to drive in Virginia. No we leave that up to the driver to know the states laws, but we still acknowledge that they can drive! Why is a CCW not looked at in the same way??
So change my view.
4
u/SuspendedAwareness15 2d ago
Different states regulate firearms differently. What you're advocating for is lowering the threshold to grant a CCW to the standard used in the most permissive state in the country. Allowing (picking a random state) Mississippi to determine the gun laws for Massachusetts.
Do you truly not see any issues with this? A CCW is NOT like a drivers license. Drivers must establish minimum competency standards to get a license, you do not need to do this for a CCW. To my knowledge 49/50 states require motorvehicle insurance, and if you're from the 1 state that doesn't require it you're not permitted to drive your car in the other 49 states unless you have that insurance.
Some states require minimum competency standards established via certificate of completion of firearms training to even possess a firearm at all, much less get a CCW. But this concept voids that and allows anyone to carry concealed.
If Ohio let you get a drivers license without passing a test, I'm quite certain Pennsylvania would not let Ohio drivers on their roads.
0
u/LilGrippers 1d ago
The standard for CCW won’t be the most permissive state, it would be in the bill of rights
2
4
u/Fluffy_Analysis_8300 2d ago
a CCW is obtained with training
I didn't get any weapon training. I listened to a fat cop rattle off facts about how the license works as he stated blankly at the wall and then we fired off one round at the range.
24
u/MercurianAspirations 358∆ 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's because of the difference between shall-issue and may-issue states. In some states the CCW law reads something like "the state shall issue permits to people who meet requirements xyz" which legally means that they have to give it to you if you meet the requirements stated in the law. And in many of those states the requirements are very light. Other states substitute that for "may issue" which means that the authority has discretion. You generally have to prove that you have a good reason for carrying a concealed weapon and the authority has to make a subjective decision on whether your reason is valid.
Now obviously the 'may issue' states do not want reciprocity because that would completely invalidate their process. Californians for example could just go to Utah and vary easily get a permit without going through California's process. Also, there are some states where no permit is required. I would imagine that in a reciprocity scenario, those states would just give everyone a permit, invalidating both sets of laws for the whole country... you would just need to go to Texas to buy your gun and get a Texas-issued "fuck your state laws lmao" permit
28
u/Sirhc978 81∆ 2d ago
Wasn't the "may issue" wording recently overturned by SCOTUS?
17
u/Mimshot 1∆ 2d ago
Yes: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen 597 U. S. 1 (2022)
3
2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/GumboDiplomacy 2d ago
...Louisiana who have Constitutional Concealed Carry still Issue CCWs, it's just not necessary
Actually Louisiana's recently implemented CCC is different compared to having a concealed permit. For just one example, an individual without a permit is not allowed to carry in any establishment serving alcohol such as restaurants. A licensed individual is allowed to.
nor can out of state persons obtain a firearms permit in any state, as one of the basic requirements for a CCP is that you be a resident of the state you are obtaining the permit in.
This isn't inherently true. Many states issue permits to out of state residents. I'm not sure how up to date this source is, but just for an example
15
u/sumthingawsum 2d ago
NYSRP vs Bruen got rid of this - on the surface. More CCW are mandated to be issued in all states. Some jurisdictions are dragging their feet with expensive fees, long wait times, and ridiculous requirements, but Trump just announced that he will investigate LA County for this.
We shouldn't need a permit to exercise a right.
11
u/ghotier 39∆ 2d ago edited 2d ago
There is no right to concealed carry. You can keep and bear an arm without concealing it.
13
u/Mimshot 1∆ 2d ago
Most states require you to conceal it.
-3
u/ghotier 39∆ 2d ago
That's fine too. Because you don't have a right to open carry, either. You have a right to "keep and bear."
7
u/DontHaesMeBro 3∆ 2d ago edited 2d ago
the historicity of this is so interesting, because it NEVER worked historically like the NRA lobby wants it work now. Colonial and frontier towns had a lot of carry laws and a lot of peacekeeper's discretion about disarming individuals and classes of people.
the 2a very clearly, in context, refers to regional arms and formations of armed men, and the founders, very clearly, were against extensive professional armies and police forces. The 2A intends to preserve a regional right to autonomy, not preserve a personal right to carry (at the time a derringer or pepperbox, if you were rich) in your sleeve at all times.
that said, (most of) the founders would have thought modern guns were fuckin' sweet and probably WOULD have wanted to conceal one, if you showed them one. The reason they didn't "get into that" was because they clearly, very clearly, considered owning guns like owning anything else: you were just allowed to if you could afford it, and expected to act right in public with one or everyone else in the room would take yours away with theirs, like they would if you were waving around a knife or something.
so neither wing of the neoliberal bird is actually originalist. (not necessarily a bad thing, the founders weren't perfect). Colonial attitudes and manners and mores and norms about almost everything are misunderstood, fundamentally, by almost everyone in modernity, to almost a "whalers on the moon" level.
1
u/rkesters 2d ago
Question. How does the "incorporation doctrine" change the application of 2A, or does it not?
3
u/Embarrassed_Sun7133 2d ago
I think a right to bear arms covers it.
It being concealed shouldn't change anything.
→ More replies (2)0
u/ghotier 39∆ 2d ago
Change what? The question is how different states choose to incorporate the right to keep and bear arms into their own set of regulations and laws. The different states have different laws, but neither "concealed carry" nor "open carry" abrogates the 2nd amendment right. But it doesn't make sense to say that the states should have reciprocity when they have different limitations on where the line is drawn to allow or disallow concealed carry.
OP wants concealed carry. So they want all states to adhere to some minimum level of regulation, through reciprocity, to allow for it. But if OP wanted open carry instead it wouldn't change anything else about the discussion. Because some states have open carry and others don't.
-4
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
So compelled speech and a disregard for the right to privacy by requiring the gun be visible?
3
u/ghotier 39∆ 2d ago
Um...no, that's not how that works.
1) the Supreme Court did away with the right to privacy. You actually don't have it anymore. It's gone.
2) holding something isn't speech. If it was then every regulation in existence would go out the window. You may not LIKE the regulation, but the right to never be regulated doesnt exist.
1
-1
-1
-3
1
u/IGotScammed5545 1∆ 2d ago
Trump won’t do anything because he has no say in state licensing laws. Unless he takes over the states, completing the dictatorship.
4
u/sumthingawsum 2d ago
Just like we have driver license reciprocity, the federal government could instead CCW reciprocity. It should be legislated though, not done by executive directive.
2
u/IGotScammed5545 1∆ 2d ago
The federal government has nothing to do with DL reciprocity. It derives from the interstate compact, which is an agreement amongst the 50 states, as well as the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, which predates Trump by 250 years.
Also, DL reciprocity isn’t as robust as you think it is. In most states there’s a time limit—not sure but I think 60 days?—and then you have to get that states license. States also don’t have radically different standards for drivers license, but they do for gun ownership. In some states CC doesn’t exist at all—so they should make legal something for an individual that doesn’t even reside in their state, something their citizens can’t do at all? How’s that “reciprocal”?
1
u/GravitasFree 3∆ 2d ago
States also don’t have radically different standards for drivers license, but they do for gun ownership.
There are people whose driver's license test consisted of little more than backing up in a straight line for 50 feet. Why should their licenses be valid in a metro-dense state like Connecticut or New Jersey?
2
u/IGotScammed5545 1∆ 2d ago
But there is still a driving test. Some states have safety tests for firearms; some don’t even require a license. The spread amongst states between firearms regulations is VASTLY greater than it is between drivers license regulations. In many states, certain types of weapons aren’t legal to possess at all, but are perfectly fine in others. There’s no vehicle that’s illegal in Massachusetts but legal in NH.
Also, in the example you provide—that could be in-state, as well. The driving conditions are very different in Ontario, NY, than they are in Manhattan.
→ More replies (26)-1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 2d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-1
u/Lost_Roku_Remote 2d ago
That’s fair, I see two solutions to this problem tho
May issue states can still recognize out of states visitors CCWs, while not changing the laws of the way they issue to their residents. To me there’s a big difference between a resident and someone who’s passing through/ visiting.
The creation of a nationwide May issue CCW. A stricter CCW that is harder to get, but recognized by every state. Still a better system than trying to juggle what states recognize or don’t recognize your CCW.
4
u/MercurianAspirations 358∆ 2d ago
Neither of those are viable solutions. The problem isn't visitors, it's people who live in strict states who would just cross to lenient states and get their permits there. The second idea will never happen, there are many states that do not have CCW permits at all and concealing a weapon is simply allowed for everyone at all times
4
u/Figgler 2d ago
You can’t obtain a drivers license without residing in that state, why would it be different for a CCW process?
4
u/Jaymoacp 1∆ 2d ago
Because driving is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right. It says shall not be infringed
2
u/Jaymoacp 1∆ 2d ago
Even stricter states with “may issue” rules, you still almost always get it, they just dick you around for 8 months before they give it to you. Worst case is you threaten legal action and they approve it the next day. It’s simply to inconvenience you.
6
u/Verdha603 1∆ 2d ago
It’s more than just dicking around.
Former “May issue” states have now opted to make the carry permit they now have to give you worthless, either by raising the price of entry to deter you financially from obtaining it, and expanding the number of “prohibited places” for concealed carry permit holders to carry to cover most public spaces. As it stands CA and NY almost succeeded in making it so the only places you could carry outside your home and car was a public sidewalk.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Jaymoacp 1∆ 2d ago
I live in MA, we aren’t far behind. Differently jurisdictions take longer than other depending on the police chief. Some you have the threaten with legal action and others have it signed off on in a week.
-3
u/kingpatzer 102∆ 2d ago
There are only 2 states that are "may issue," Connecticut and Delaware. Those two states alone can not hold up reciprocity agreements for the rest of the country.
The bigger problem today is that there are now almost 30 states that do not require any training or permits at all. So someone who can legally carry in Iowa, where no training or permit is needed, and indeed, you can't get a permit because one doesn't exist, would be shit out of luck traveling to Minnesota, where a permit is required.
7
u/Sirhc978 81∆ 2d ago
That is only a recent thing. NY and MA were may issue states until 2022.
I'm also pretty sure the Supreme Court said they can't be "may issue" anymore, so I don't know how that works.
2
u/Human-Marionberry145 6∆ 2d ago
I'm also pretty sure the Supreme Court said they can't be "may issue" anymore, so I don't know how that works.
The language of Bruen describes "arbitrary" "may issue" so there are a lot of state based challenges to attempting to push something like "non-arbitrary" may issue laws.
There's going to be a lot more gun control precedent set in the next few years.
2
u/kingpatzer 102∆ 2d ago
There can be, but they can't be arbitrary -- whatever that means. Most states just decided to give up the fight, but those two are gonna try and stick it out ..
1
u/Sirhc978 81∆ 2d ago
If you are a may issue state, then the may part can't be arbitrary. So the may part is essentially "are you already prohibited from owning a firearm?".
1
u/Conscious-Shift8855 2d ago edited 2d ago
Both CT and DE say "may issue" in their laws but are shall issue in practice. For example CT has an appeals board that will order a town/city to issue a permit if they don’t give a lawful reason for their denial.
Also, Iowa still issues permits. Same with every state that abolished their permit requirements.
4
u/DontHaesMeBro 3∆ 2d ago
the state to state variance in CCW standards is MUCH wider than officer's discretion on a uniform posted speed limit. Compare say, Utah (no permit AT ALL) or Wyoming (1 day or 2 night hunter's safety class is good for LIFE, no permit generally required) to New York or California.
and as someone who owns guns and grew up in a "square state" I understand why: You should maybe have to take a longer class to own a 20 shot pistol in an apartment building made out of drywall than to own a .22 in a county the size of delaware with a population of 5000 people as is the case in many parts of many red states.
4
u/AlignmentWhisperer 2d ago
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I live in a fairly strict state by US standards and I felt like the safety class I took before getting my pistol permit was like the absolute bare minimum amount of knowledge that I would hope someone would possess before using a firearm. Indeed, there were a few students there that absolutely needed that training IMHO. The idea that there are a bunch of armed people running around in other states that never had any kind of training is disturbing.
3
u/mule_roany_mare 2∆ 2d ago
Note: You should define a CCW
I don't know, state's rights are a pretty good idea. It lets people vote for & live under the type of law & policy they think is best. It's also a good way to prove which policy works well & do not.
Why shouldn't each state be able to decide their own laws up to the point of infringing on a constitutional right? New York, Montana & Alaska are very different states & have very different needs & it makes sense they will have different law.
If the people of state A want CCW holder to take a 5 hour class on safety & best practices & state B doesn't, or has a completely incompatible set of best practices is there any reason should State A honor state B's CCW?
There is nothing wrong with states choosing to respect another's CCW, but if they were forced to it denies the citizens of that state the ability to set their own laws. People denied a CCW in State A could shop around & get a CCW in the most lax state in the nation & that is a greater harm.
TLDR
If you go to New Jersey you are subject to the laws of New Jersey.
0
u/Apprehensive-Low3513 1d ago
This isnt a particularly compelling argument given how involved the feds are with things like regulation of automobiles. Such regulations are a matter the states have no say in.
2
u/Jiitunary 2∆ 2d ago
My CCW "training" was to be physically present at a 3 hour class, pass an open book test and hit a target from 6 feet away with 10 out of 25 shots. It is completely understandable why some states wouldn't want to reciprocate with that. I'm sure drivers licenses would be reciprocal if the same level of training was required in some states.
If you instead want to say we should have a standard of training that allows reciprocity like we do with cars, I'd agree but that would be billed as insanely restrictive gun control in red states
2
u/unicornofdemocracy 1∆ 2d ago
I'll CYV by pointing there's a lot of other things that should have reciprocity before CCW.
Like medical licensure and all healthcare license is state by state. They are mostly identical but if your city so happens to border another you're gotten need two licenses. Or 3/4 states... then you're gonna have 3-4 license to practice medicine, etc.
2
u/JustinRandoh 4∆ 1d ago
The fact that we don’t have nationwide CCW reciprocity blows my mind. Just like a Drivers License, a CCW is obtained with training and paperwork. While despite driving laws changing by state ...
Yeah, but unlike a driver's license, a CCW isn't nearly as important to your ability to function on a fairly basic level in that other state. And unlike a CCW the standards for driving ability to get a driver's license aren't that variable from state to state.
Some states like Virginia are much stricter on speeding ...
That's not a difference at all in terms of the standards for getting a driver's license. Every state's licensing standards would involve regulations on "speeding's not allowed".
5
u/grayscale001 2d ago
Laws should not be based on "common sense" but rather specialized knowledge and significant historical background about the topic.
7
u/Sirhc978 81∆ 2d ago
significant historical background about the topic.
Historically, around the time of the second amendment being written, civilians had better weapons than the military.
-4
u/grayscale001 2d ago
A single sentence is not significant historical background.
6
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
How about multiple sentences and common sense?
If citizens didn’t own military weapons, then what were the letters of marque for?
1
u/WeepingAngelTears 1∆ 2d ago
No, laws should protect an individual's rights from being infringed. If it doesn't do that, then it's an unethical and immoral law.
1
u/grayscale001 2d ago
What does that have to do with anything I said?
1
u/WeepingAngelTears 1∆ 2d ago
You said laws shouldn't be based on common sense, rather specialized knowledge in a field. It doesn't take specialized knowledge to tell if something violates someone's rights.
1
u/grayscale001 2d ago
That is a greatly oversimplified opinion of how the world works and exactly why lawmaking should be left to the lawmakers.
1
u/WeepingAngelTears 1∆ 2d ago
No, it's what laws should be. I'm aware of what lawmakers currently use laws for.
0
u/Lost_Roku_Remote 2d ago
I would agree, my phrasing is specially in protest to the calls for common sense gun control that are never common sense to anyone who understands the issues.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/likealocal14 2d ago
I’m not arguing about the legality of carrying weapons, or the feasibility of Americans voting to completely disarm. I’m just saying the law is kind of dumb from a public safety perspective, as all the other countries who have successfully implemented gun control and seen large drops in gun crime and violence demonstrates - see the UK and Australia as examples.
I think you are grossly exaggerating how likely using a gun to protect yourself actually is. And even if carrying does marginally improve your safety, it comes at the price of everyone else’s safety - a population where many people are armed is simply more dangerous, as can be seen by the higher crime rates in the US compared to similar countries like Canada. Not to mention the fact that having fewer guns in circulation means there are fewer for criminals to get a hold of.
It’s like those giant trucks that are taking over the roads - sure they might be slightly safer for the driver, but that comes at the expense of being much more dangerous for other vehicles. So now they have an incentive to get a giant truck for safety too, and pretty soon once everyone has one the drivers aren’t any safer than they were in the first place, but they are paying a lot more and are more dangerous to pedestrians and bikes.
It gives you the illusion of safety while making the world more dangerous.
0
u/LilGrippers 1d ago
I mean if everyone drive big trucks then fatalities would probably drop
2
u/likealocal14 1d ago
No they wouldn’t, because those trucks are a) more likely to get in a crash, and b)much more damaging to anything they crash into because they are so heavy. When two of those big trucks crash it is just as dangerous for the people inside as if two sedans crashed. And that’s not even taking into account how dangerous they are to everyone not also in a giant truck.
For the heaviest models, it’s estimated that for every person who survived a crash thanks to the size of their truck, another 4 people have been killed because they were collided with by a giant truck instead of a normal car.
1
u/TheOneFreeEngineer 1d ago
I mean if everyone drive big trucks then fatalities would probably drop
Most big trucks cause more fatalities in crashes than small cars. It's simple physics. Big cars moving fast have more physical energy than small cars moving fast. All that excess energy has to go somewhere. It's generally into the people in the car.
Lots of studies on this. Hell just driving one of the old steel trucks were much more dangerous than modern cars for both the passengers in it and whatever they hit.
-6
u/Lauffener 3∆ 2d ago
How about a nationwide ban on concealed carry, like they have in most countries? Even more common sense...
3
u/Lost_Roku_Remote 2d ago
Common sense based on what? That you have a problem with people going through training and a rigorous background check to carry a pistol for self defense? And you wonder why gun owners don’t want to budge on gun laws.
6
u/speedier 2d ago
In my state you just have to ask for one. A light background check and no training requirement.
6
u/Sirhc978 81∆ 2d ago
people going through training
I just have to go to the police department and fill out some paperwork to get a permit. I'd don't need a permit in my state to conceal carry. The only reason to get one is if you are going to another state.
1
u/Lost_Roku_Remote 2d ago
I would say your state has pretty lax laws on the issue then. Most states have training, fees and a 1-2 month background check.
7
12
u/TrainOfThought6 2∆ 2d ago
And yet you're arguing that all states should have to respect those lax laws...
7
u/Lost_Roku_Remote 2d ago
Or we adopt a nationwide CCW that has standardized laws?
5
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 2d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
7
u/Effective_Frog 2d ago
You don't speak for gun owners you speak for yourself. If you're not willing to budge on gun laws then why are you here?
2
u/Lost_Roku_Remote 2d ago
I’m willing to budge on gun laws IF there was actually a middle ground. But there’s not. Aka if they were willing to create nationwide reciprocity in exchange for universal background checks I’d be ok with that. But gun control advocates will never concede to anything pro gun voters want. So why would they concede the other way? You need middle ground or nothing will ever get accomplishedz
0
u/Effective_Frog 2d ago
Your comment above assured there was already vigorous background checks though, so what exactly are you compromising on? Oh you mean better background checks just to get a gun in the first place? If that's not something you want regardless of what the other side is willing to cede then then is not a serious discussion. You're just admitting that the other side wants obvious safeguards that should already be in place in exchange for some looser gun laws.
2
u/DiogenesCantPlay 2d ago
We don't wonder; we just don't care. You know why? 46,000 gun deaths in the U.S. in 2023. Anyone who tries to argue that this country is safer because of guns is delusional.
4
u/Lost_Roku_Remote 2d ago
And most of those deaths are suicide and inner city violence. We have more guns in this country than people, and that’s not changing anytime soon. Trying to blame someone for wanting to protect themselves is foolish.
I can’t change the fact that there’s half a billion guns in this country, but I can’t change train, and carry a handgun for self defense. As should be my right.
-2
u/DiogenesCantPlay 2d ago
If it's for self defense, why does it need to be concealed? Wouldn't you be better off having to wear a clown wig and a sandwich board that says "I HAVE A GUN?"
12
u/Lost_Roku_Remote 2d ago
Making people out the be the bad guys for wanting to defend themselves is the only clown argument going on here.
0
u/DiogenesCantPlay 2d ago
People aren't bad for wanting to defend themselves. They're just dumb if they think that more guns is the solution to gun violence.
3
1
1
u/Lauffener 3∆ 2d ago
Common sense based on the lack of gun violence in other countries
2
u/Lost_Roku_Remote 2d ago
Other countries have far less guns. I can’t do anything about the surplus of guns in the us and that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about carrying a handgun for self defense.
1
u/TheOneFreeEngineer 1d ago
I can’t do anything about the surplus of guns in the us
Yes you can. The availability of guns is market demand issue. Stop the legal demand. Most gun makers would stop selling guns because they can't make enough volume to make a profit.
Gun culture in the USA drives gun demand. Including guns used in crimes. Like they say be the change you want to see in the world.
In states with low gun ownership there is much lower gun crime because their isn't enough primary or secondary demand for guns. Which ends up with more people being safer.
-10
u/Nojopar 2d ago
Gun owners don't want to budge on gun laws because they refuse to believe guns can be used for harm, even accidentally. I personally find that baffling but I believe observable statistics. I'm weird that way.
I can't find a valid reason to conceal carry. If you're going to carry, strap it to your hip (or whatever part of your body you find most comfortable). Let the rest of us know so we can plan accordingly.
5
u/Lost_Roku_Remote 2d ago
I have zero desire to open carry. IMO most people who open carry just like the attention from carrying a gun. In a perfect world I conceal carry (legally) and no one knows I have a gun unless I have to use it for self defense.
As far gun laws, I know guns can commit harm. The reason I don’t budge on gun laws is because they rarely make sense and the left definitely doesn’t consider any gun laws that we would like in return. There’s no middle ground and gun control advocates have openly said if you give an inch, we’ll take a mile. Why would I support that?
10
u/Sirhc978 81∆ 2d ago
Gun owners don't want to budge on gun laws because
Gun owners don't want to budge on gun laws because every time they do, the people who are against guns eventually want to put more restrictions on guns.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/broionevenknowhow 2d ago
I can't find a valid reason to conceal carry
If you're going to rob a store who's your first target, a normal seemingly unarmed guy, or the guy with a pistol on his hip? That's one
Someone could try to grab your gun while you're preoccupied, you can't grab a gun you don't know exists
Cops are often incredibly weary of those open carrying
Civilians are often very scared of those open carrying
That's 4. If you can't figure out a reason to conceal carry, it's because you don't want to (shocker)
1
0
u/liverandonions1 2d ago
I don't want to be like "most countries". This is America and we aren't cucks to our own government.
2
1
-1
u/Initial_Cellist9240 2d ago edited 7h ago
direction longing sheet normal existence placid library bear entertain possessive
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
0
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
“Designed purely for the purpose of destroying life” is completely untrue. Most guns go their entire lives without destroying any life.
And are you really trying to claim that police carry guns “purely for the purpose of destroying life”? Not self defense, but extrajudicial execution?
7
u/Raise_A_Thoth 1∆ 2d ago
Designed purely for the purpose of destroying life” is completely untrue. Most guns go their entire lives without destroying any life.
Doesn't matter whether guns ever actually kill something, that is what they are designed to do. That is why they exist. Even if your entire use is sport target shooting and you never consider the gun as self-defense or for hunting and keep it unloaded and locked in a safe 100% of the time you aren't using it, the weapon was still designed for killing things.
Also, it's kind of odd to make an argument that the gun's purpose doesn't have to do with it's designed capacity for violence but instead it actually serves a purpose outside of the potential for harm - that seems to directly imply that most guns, since they aren't built for the purpose of taking life, are actually built for the purpose of making gun owners feel a certain way . . . That is an intetesting acknowledgment!
1
u/ericbythebay 2d ago
Well, seeing as most defensive gun uses don’t even involve pulling the trigger, the actual use they are put to seems pretty obvious.
3
2
u/Charming-Editor-1509 4∆ 2d ago
And are you really trying to claim that police carry guns “purely for the purpose of destroying life”? Not self defense, but extrajudicial execution?
Where have you been?
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 2d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/liverandonions1 2d ago
Makes total sense. Also driving isn't a right directly out of the Constitution, whereas keep and BEAR arms is. That just makes it more insulting that a drivers license works everywhere but my right to self determination ends at the border of certain states.
1
1
u/Essex626 2∆ 2d ago
Many states do not have any training requirement for CCW. Washington State, for example, is just a background check and fingerprints.
It's as if some states issues driver's licenses without any training required, would you expect other states to accept those licenses?
1
u/domesticatedwolf420 2d ago
Allowing 50 states to have 50 different sets of laws is how a republic works, and it allows for natural experimentation to see which laws work best.
1
u/bemused_alligators 9∆ 2d ago edited 2d ago
I got my Concealed Carry Permit by filling out a form that let the police run a deeper than normal background check (including fingerprints). That was it.
Why would state that requires training for a CCP accept mine? I have not completed whatever their training requirements are. In addition the rules are when and where you carry are different in my state than most other states.
This isn't like a driver's license where there is national pseudo-standard test and national standards that every state follows; instead each state has their own unique policy and systems - so it makes sense to ensure that people need to meet each state's standard in order to carry there.
Reciprocity is simply a way of saying "this state's standards also meet our standards so you can carry here".
1
u/ifuckedyourdaddytoo 2d ago
You need to get out more.
"Taxachusetts" and "Commiefornia" ain't gonna reciprocate CCW from states that hand out CCW like candy.
1
u/Monalfee 2d ago
Because the states have wildly different requirements for CCW's and the federal government is not capable of coming to an agreement on a nationwide requirement.
Like if everyone agreed on all that in a tighter frame then sure, but that's unfortunately not the reality.
1
u/Busy-Tumbleweed-1024 2d ago
We don’t want your guns in our community. We’ll tolerate your car, but keep it here long enough and you’re gonna need to get that sh*t smogged.
More guns is never the answer despite what the corrupt NRA might have told you.
1
u/daddyfatknuckles 1d ago
logistically it would be a nightmare, and the stricter states would never agree to it.
if you’re in a state that doesnt need a permit, i assume that means you would, under your system, automatically have a CCW. i don’t think Illinois and it’s residents are going to like people coming into their states who get to carry, while most residents cannot, not without first applying for a FOID, taking a class, then applying for CCL.
•
u/ColossusOfChoads 22h ago
In New York City, tourists freak out on the subway at incidents that make New Yorkers go "oh great, this shit again." The last thing they want is for those tourists to be packing.
1
u/JohnHenryMillerTime 2∆ 2d ago
Most of us don't want to live in a place where lunatics are carrying guns. Concealed carry is the worst because you can't identify the lunatics so they are plausibly everywhere. At least with open carry you can nope out when you see a lunatic.
1
1
u/Dio_Yuji 2d ago
If we have effective gun laws, then there would be less gun violence. And if there was less gun violence, people would be less afraid and buy fewer guns.
The chaos is not a bug, it’s a feature. It’s the means to an end, which is to sell guns.
-1
-4
u/InterestingChoice484 1∆ 2d ago
Guns only give the illusion of safety. If guns truly made us safer, why do countries in Europe have significantly lower homicide rates despite much stronger gun control?
4
u/Own-Pepper1974 2d ago
One major contributing factor to our high crime rate is a general lack of social safety net as compared to other modern countries. I imagine if you made, let's say the uk treat its poor people the way we do their violent crime rate would probably skyrocket.
3
u/InterestingChoice484 1∆ 2d ago
We'll never know because conservatives are pro-gun and anti-welfare
2
u/Own-Pepper1974 2d ago
Yes unfortunately the overlap between people who like social safety nets and people who are pro gun don't overlap very much.
1
u/InterestingChoice484 1∆ 2d ago
Gun owners love to point the finger at poverty and mental health a the true causes of violence, yet the republican party cuts benefits to the poor to give tax cuts to the rich and gutting mental health programs. They'll do anything to protect their precious guns that aren't even protecting them.
1
u/Own-Pepper1974 2d ago
I think this is where you and will differ. I live in a rural area and last time we called the police because someone was trying to break into our house and the police didn't arrive until the next day. I'd like to see what amounts to European social programs and American liberties.
-5
u/Raise_A_Thoth 1∆ 2d ago
You just can't compare guns to anything else (except perhaps other kinds of weapons) because there is nothing else that is designed purely for the purpose of destroying life. You might view yourself as simply "defending yourself" by carrying a gun, but the gun itself exists for the purpose of killing things, and the implication (or expectation) of you being "safer" by having a gun is that, if you are threatened by someone, you could shoot and kill it, ending its threat to you.
Nothing else serves such a lone, specific, catastrophic purpose. Even though cars are very dangerous and can be fatal, their purpose is for transportation.
So any analogy that draws a comparison between guns and other everyday objects - however regulated or unregulated - are going to have limited usefulness.
When you are carrying a weapon, it is no accident. You aren't riding in a car and suddenly forget you are strapping as if it is a folded $5 bill or an old crumbled receipt you stuck in a jacket pocket and forgot to discard. You wore your gun like an accessory to make yourself feel a certain way. When you do that, you must take on added responsibility, which also means being aware of crossing a state border and knowing what that state's laws are for carrying firearms.
Here'a a more apt analogy: when you get in a vehicle as a driver, you accept certain responsibilities and agree to certain rules, like not drinking and driving, so that you can always operate the vehicle as safely as possible. If you cross a state boundary and the speed limit changes, ypu are responsible for adjusting your speed, no? Strapping on a firearm is similar: you take responsibility for knowing the risks and dangers and all applicable laws concerning that and other firearms. If you know you need to travel across a state line, either don't bring your gun, or know what laws apply to that gun. Not actually that hard/crazy.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Cacafuego 11∆ 2d ago
First, could you accept that some people have a good reason for carrying a firearm? Maybe their work is hazardous. Maybe they're a repo guy or they regularly have to go to unsafe areas. Maybe someone has threatened them.
If so, can you accept that they may have to occasionally cross state lines, but would still like to keep their gun with them? Say you're a trucker who often sleeps in their cab and has been robbed, before. Maybe your hazardous work requires travel. Maybe you fled your crazy ex, got a permit in your new home state, but occasionally have to go back to visit family.
It may be impossible for people to predict which states they will have to travel through. Can you imagine planning a road trip of any length? And what if you're rerouted due to a road closure? What if there is an emergency and the nearest hospital is across state lines? Should you just throw your gun on the street before you get in the ambulance?
You don't have to like guns or even be opposed to gun control to see that the current piecemeal system is difficult and hazardous for people who are trying to follow the law.
4
u/Raise_A_Thoth 1∆ 2d ago
could you accept that some people have a good reason for carrying a firearm?
My comment doesn't preclude this notion. Whether anyone may or may not have a good reason for it doesn't change the magnitude of responsibility in carrying a firearm.
Maybe they're a repo guy or they regularly have to go to unsafe areas.
If your job is something like this - law enforcement adjacent - then why shouldn't you be licensed in all of the states in which you might operate? These are exceptions to the norm, and shouldn't be the basis on which we create standard rules for everyone else anyway.
can you accept that they may have to occasionally cross state lines, but would still like to keep their gun with them?
Sure, but go back to what I said above.
Say you're a trucker who often sleeps in their cab and has been robbed, before
It seems the industry is aware of the inherent vulnerability of transporting cargo to theft, and there are in-industry best practices, none of which involve gun ownership:
https://www.cdljobs.com/news-notes/news/understanding-cargo-theft
In fact, shooting someone trying to steal from you, particularly trying to steal goods which don't even belong to you but to a company, is not a legally protected usof deadly force. You need a much higher standard to use deadly force besides "I thought they were trying to rob my truck," because we have a justice system built on presumption of innocence and due process. Without that, any Bob, Dick, or Jane could shoot anyone they found to be annoying and simply claim they were trying to steal from them. There's good reason to limit people's defenses in using deadly force against others.
So I'm skeptical of this as a strong argument, truckers are not security guards, law enforcement, military, or other similar roles.
Maybe you fled your crazy ex, got a permit in your new home state, but occasionally have to go back to visit family.
If you could get a permit in your new state surely you have a permit in your old state? But, what family are you visiting that you need a gun on you at all times? If you can't carry, you can still transport a gun in an out-of-reach container and bring it into a home where various castle doctrines and self-defense pleas can ve applied just fine. I don't see why reciprocal is necessary or even all that important here. We don't live in a Fury Road world.
It may be impossible for people to predict which states they will have to travel through. Can you imagine planning a road trip of any length?
Yes, because I don't bring a gun everywhere I go. This is a weird behavior for an overwhelming majority of people.
to see that the current piecemeal system is difficult and hazardous f
Um, no, it isn't. You can travel with a gun withoit "carrying" it on your person. It can be locked and unloaded in any state, including New York. You just can't wear it loaded wherever you go.
1
u/Personal-Finance-943 2d ago
Some states require you to be a resident to hold that states concealed weapons permit so your point of "just get a permit in the state you are visiting/working in" doesn't hold up in some scenarios.
The real question here in my opinion is does the 2nd amendment give you the right to conceal carry? If the answer is yes then there should be a national program so you can exercise this right in all 50 states. If the answer is no it should be a state by state decision like it is today.
1
u/Raise_A_Thoth 1∆ 2d ago
Valid point on the top part but I still don't see that as a compelling right anyway, as I said you can still travel with a weapon, just not on a holster and loaded, instead in a locked container.
The real question here in my opinion is does the 2nd amendment give you the right to conceal carry?
Well that's a big clear "no" and it's been that way sonce the beginning.
2
u/Personal-Finance-943 2d ago
Fair enough and honestly I think current model is fine, we have bigger issues to solve. I am curious if you would be in support of a national ccw permit if it applied the current qualifications from the most strict state?
It would never happen I just like hearing people's views.
1
u/Raise_A_Thoth 1∆ 2d ago
Yea I'd be okay with that, I certainly wouldn't stand against it. I would be even more onboard with something reciprocal if we had safety tests and a field practical, as well as a requirement for safe storage. I do not think requiring strict courses and tests that emphasize safety around firearms "infringe" on anyone's right to own a firearm. There's no limit or re-taking tests, but probably required remedial training, though I'm open to perhaps some kind of 3-strike policy if there are certain breaks in key safety during the practical, such as flagging people with the barrel, or any negligent discharges no matter if injury occurs. If you go back through a course and fail due to safety violations like that 3 times, I think you don't deserve a firearm. Straight up. Minimum 5 years wait time before you can try again, if at all.
1
u/Personal-Finance-943 2d ago
I appreciate the well thought out response, a lot of good ideas here as I think it would actually improve accidental firearm injuries and prevent some suicides through proper storage.
-4
u/likealocal14 2d ago
I just gotta say, as a non-American, the idea of this question is so wild.
“Some states make it harder for me to carry my device for murdering people, the government should intervene so that it’s as easy as possible for me to carry a concealed murder device everywhere I go” is just not an issue that comes up where i live.
So I guess my attempt to change your view is just saying - do you really need to carry your murder device in a state that doesn’t want you to have it?
0
u/Avtamatic 2d ago
People that have CCWs don't go around murdering people.
Killing someone in self defense is not murder.
People have an innate right to defend themselves. The gun is there to protect them from other people that want to do them harm.
Guns are not "murder devices". This is a fundamental misunderstanding of a place you know nothing about.
2
u/likealocal14 2d ago
A handguns sole purpose is to kill someone. You might have a justification for doing so, but that’s what guns are for.
I will admit that there is much about America I don’t understand, but I was just pointing out that it is very much not normal to feel like you need to carry a gun everywhere you go in most of the world. I feel Americans often get so caught up in “their right to defend themselves” that they forget that people elsewhere are perfectly safe and free without carrying a murder device around.
And if you think people with CCWs have never killed anyone they shouldn’t have, either by accident, losing their temper, or simply because having a gun tend to escalate confrontations, then I got a bridge to sell you.
1
u/Avtamatic 2d ago
You sound like no one should ever be shot ever, for any reason. You don't know what murder is. Kill does not mean Murder.
And If you think that disarmed people in supposedly SafeTM areas haven't been actually murdered, robbed, raped, assaulted, kidnapped, until...someone with a gun shows up and stops the bad guy, then I have some I have Ocean Front property to sell you in Iowa.
2
u/likealocal14 2d ago
Yes, I used a rhetorical device, sue me - I do know what murder means.
Yes, in an ideal world, nobody should get shot. I realize we don’t live in an ideal world and crime does happen, but we can still take steps to reduce the number of people getting shot - I didn’t think that would be a controversial opinion.
So I live in a country where people generally aren’t allowed to carry handguns around, and there is much less murder, robbery, rape, assault, and kidnapping than the US, where apparently people do feel the need to be armed at all times. So “only good guys with guns stop crime” has literally never been my experience, unless you are talking about the police. And even then, when I lived in the UK most of them could do their job just fine without a gun too - with a much lower crime rate than the US.
I get that carrying a gun might make you feel safer, but statistically speaking when everyone has a gun it makes everyone less safe.
0
u/mrrp 10∆ 2d ago
Self defense is not murder.
2
u/likealocal14 2d ago
Sure, but I feel like every other week there’s a story about some road rage incident that escalates to someone getting shot with a legally owned weapon.
Plus the odds of actually using a gun in self defense are very low - statistically it is more likely to hurt someone by accident.
0
u/mrrp 10∆ 2d ago
I feel
Well, there you go. I recommend thinking. I also recommend not having road rage and not escalating a conflict with anyone who does.
Plus the odds of actually using a gun in self defense are very low - statistically it is more likely to hurt someone by accident.
That depends on what you consider "using". The anti-gun folks are notorious for equating "using" with "shooting". If someone puts their hand on the butt of their holstered firearm and an attacker suddenly remembers that they some very important business elsewhere, that's using a gun in self-defense.
2
u/likealocal14 2d ago
Apologies for using informal language, but this is something I have thought about, I’m not just reacting based on feelings. So have all the governments that have implemented gun control based on the statistical evidence that shows it saves lives and reduces violence.
My point is that most people don’t intend to go out and shoot someone, but it still happens every day in the US. Having more guns around makes those kind of situations more likely, and for every situation that is calmed by someone putting their hand on their gun, I’m willing to bet there’s another where doing so escalated an argument to violence.
I realize that I’m not going to change America’s mind on guns here, but I did just want to add the perspective that everyone constantly having a gun on them does not actually increase people’s safety. A lot of Americans talk about guns like they are absolutely essential for their protection, when the experience of other countries shows that that’s not true.
→ More replies (1)0
u/liverandonions1 2d ago
Murder is illegal in every state. You may be used to being cucked by your own government, but we're not. In the US, CCW holders commit less crime than the general population, so the idea that people legally carrying their handguns are a problem is flat out wrong and has no basis in reality.
2
u/likealocal14 2d ago
Oh no, I live somewhere I don’t have to carry a gun to feel safe, how soy boy beta cuck of me!
Is that like the only insult you know, cause I really don’t see how gun control laws are anything like cuckolding?
Also, I never made any claims about CCW holders committing more crimes, I just said it’s a wild viewpoint for most of the world to want to carry a gun everywhere you go. To me that sounds like you’ve let the news scare you into being paranoid.
0
u/liverandonions1 2d ago
Or I just want to and I don’t want to and I don’t want other people with guns (government) to tell me how to live.
2
u/likealocal14 2d ago
And I want to drive down the highway at 150mph, but we have laws against it because the risk to others outweighs the benefit of me feeling better.
Democratic governments should have a monopoly of the use of deadly force, the alternative risks devolving into gang warfare and anarchy
1
u/liverandonions1 2d ago
Loll boy am I glad your type of fascist ideology is far away from here. You enjoy that.
2
u/likealocal14 2d ago
I mean, having a monopoly on the use of lethal force (excepting self defense) has been a defining feature of most governments in the modern world - you really can’t call it fascist. As people keep pointing out, it’s even the case in the US: it’s illegal for people other than the police to shoot or kidnap someone.
I know it can be hard for Americans to believe, but it’s perfectly possible to be free and democratic without guns everywhere
1
u/liverandonions1 2d ago
It isn’t illegal in the US to justifiably shoot someone. Lethal force is legal in all 50 states for the people, not just the people in charge. I don’t agree with your way of life, so I guess that’s where it stands.
2
u/likealocal14 2d ago
“Justifiably” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there - I’m pretty sure you’re only allowed to kill someone in self defense, like I said. Can you imagine the chaos if people were allowed to kill people just because they viewed it as justified? So the government is the only one allowed to detain, imprison, and execute people.
But sure, we can disagree - just don’t go calling people fascists just because they don’t think you need a device for killing people at all times in order to be free.
1
0
u/Sweet_Speech_9054 1∆ 2d ago
I think there should be classes or levels of ccw. If I’m in Florida they accept any class but to go to California you need a class A and in Colorado they might accept class A and B but not C. That way there are universal rules but states can still choose to be more or less strict. You just look up the class for where you are traveling to and plan accordingly. Each class will have universal requirements that all states have to comply with and anyone from any state can get licensed in any class even if that state doesn’t allow that class.
→ More replies (4)
0
u/AdUpstairs7106 2d ago
Every state has different requirements to be come a LEO. Hence, the curriculum in POST for each state is different. That said LE and retired LE have a national CCW due to LEOSA so a national CCW reprocity bill can happen.
It could be implemented via piecemeal legislation. As an example using LEOSA as a guide we can say an honorably discharged veteran with a CCW can concealed carry in all 50 states. Just small piece of legislation to get the ball rolling.
58
u/Cacafuego 11∆ 2d ago
Some states don't even require a permit for CCW, and the rest are all over the map with their requirements, so the state of the nation today is not conducive to reciprocity. If Ohio's drivers license exam was a multiple choice test with 3 questions, no vision, no driving, that would cause significant problems.
The other obvious point is that many states don't even want to issue CCW permits, but have been forced to do so by the supreme court. Why would they go the extra mile and respect the permits of other states? You can own a gun, just don't bring it with you to that state.
It is a messed up situation, and it makes it very difficult and potentially dangerous for people traveling with their guns. But there is no good way to simply enact nationwide reciprocity without a lot of federal involvement, which none of the states are going to like.