# National Carry Must be Signed



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

*National Carry Must be Signed*
Michael Cook

It's time for Congress to do the right thing and take action on the right to carry for those who have concealed carry licenses. Last year, Congress passed a law, and it was signed by President Bush, to allow police officer and retired police officers to carry all over the United States. Now they need to do this for holders of concealed carry permits. Right now, if you are issued a license to drive a car in one state. it is good in another state. The concealed carry permit should be the same.

With the war on terrorism going on, it is vital we allow our good citizens to protect themselves and others. This was why our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment in our Constitution in the first place. America is in danger right now and we need to let our citizens do the one thing that will help in our national security. No one wants to use a weapon unless they have to. However, in this day and age, it is necessary we have it with us when we need it. Many of our citizens are traveling from state to state now, and once they cross the line into a state other than their home state, they must go unprotected. This has caused many to stay home and not go on that planed trip, along with high gas prices.

When this national carry was allowed for police and retired police officers, they had some restrictions. One was that they must qualify with their weapon once a year and carry proof of this with them. I, for one, like this rule. I like to see anyone who carries a sidearm show they can be proficient with that weapon. The same could be required of those who have carry permits. It only takes one or two hours out of the long year for them to go to a range and have a certified instructor test them.

Many of you are asking why should I have to do this, the answer is quite simple; you need to be able to hit your target and know how to properly deploy and use that carry weapon. Way back when I was doing research and training to see about switching from revolvers to semi-automatic handguns for law enforcement, some things came to light that are important. On a national average, police officers who are well trained with handguns were only getting one hit out of nine rounds fired from revolvers, while the Illinois State Police, who were carrying 9mm semi-automatics, were getting six hits our of nine fired. These were rounds fired in actual combat circumstances. It wasn't the Illinois State Police were getting better training; it was that the natural point abilities were better with semi-automatics. My worry, like yours should be, where the misses are going and who is being harmed by them.

Many times over the years while teaching firearms and tactics for their use at the college and for the Sheriff's Office, I drummed it into the students and police officers that they not only need to be able to hit their target, they also needed to be aware of what was beyond their target that would also be in danger if they missed. For instance, if you are in a crowd of people and you need to engage someone in that crowd, then you need to drop down so you are shooting up at and angle not endangering others. Thinking these things through beforehand will lead you to doing the right thing when the time comes to act. Practice is so important with any firearm. I recommend going out once a month and doing just that as the minimum you should do to keep yourself in top shooting form.

We need the national carry law passed and we need to show that we are responsible enough to do just that. Now is the time to lobby for both. We need ranges for training and responsible people to be able to carry; we need you to be armed to keep America safe.

God bless America and God bless our troops still in harm's way.

Michael E. Cook, Coos County Sheriff, Retired

Manager Bay Area Firearms


----------



## Maximo (May 26, 2006)

Amen!:smt1099


----------



## scooter (May 9, 2006)

A very pleasant voice from a LEO ,sadly it will fall on deaf ears(congress):smt011


----------



## Baldy (Jun 21, 2006)

+1 with Scooter.


----------



## A_J (May 22, 2006)

Yah good luck getting congress to do anything meaninful in an election year. And the Dems would fight this tooth and nail.

Now if they could sneak this into a renewal of the Patriot Act.. hmm, there's an idea..


----------



## Thor (May 11, 2006)

The FIRST thing to get a National Carry Law passed would be to have some consistency from state to state. Personally, I like Minnesota's carry laws. They seem fair, moderate and allow carry in a majority of places such as bars, churches, banks, city, county and state government buildings. The .04% BAC even makes some sense. There may be states with even more liberal (less restrictive) carry laws, I can't say.


----------



## jwkimber45 (May 6, 2006)

Thor said:


> The FIRST thing to get a National Carry Law passed would be to have some consistency from state to state. Personally, I like Minnesota's carry laws. They seem fair, moderate and allow carry in a majority of places such as bars, churches, banks, city, county and state government buildings. The .04% BAC even makes some sense. There may be states with even more liberal (less restrictive) carry laws, I can't say.


I'll second that, but I like Virgina's laws better. Carry what you want, how you want, where you want. NO PERMIT REQUIRED.

THATS HOW IT SHOULD BE!!!!


----------



## OMSBH44 (Jul 7, 2006)

What bothers me about the proposed national carry law is the statement that anyone who has a concealed carry license in any one state and "meets certain requirements" will be able to carry in other states. 

What are the "certain requirements" that must be met?


----------



## Mike Barham (Mar 30, 2006)

I think "national carry" may be a mistake. Once the federal behemoth gets its filthy hands on CCW, it can do what it wants to our "right to carry." Imagine what will happen when the Democrats return to power on the federal level, whether it's this year or some future election. Think of the damage they could do by manipulating such a law to raise the "minimum requirements" in relatively free states like Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Texas, etc.

I think a better solution is to continue to work at the state level for reciprocity and opening up the remaining non-CCW and "may issue" states. Once they are "shall issue," reciprocity agreements should be relatively easy. This is the strategy we've been pursuing for the last decade or so, and it's been very successful thus far. Simple agreements between states are far less dangerous to liberty than the iron fist of the federal government.

We may never get some states where the Democratic machine is heavily entrenched. While I know what the Second Amendment says, I am not sure the heavy hand of the federal leviathan should be used to destroy what shreds remain of the concept of "states rights," which is exactly what "national CCW" would do. No matter who wields the power of the federal government, that power is still a "dangerous servant and fearful master," to quote George Washington. Even if we think we are doing a good thing, we have to be extremely wary of the unintended consequences of giving the feds any role at all in CCW.

*Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!*


----------



## bruce333 (Sep 1, 2006)

jwkimber45 said:


> I'll second that, but I like Virgina's laws better. Carry what you want, how you want, where you want. NO PERMIT REQUIRED.
> 
> THATS HOW IT SHOULD BE!!!!


That's Vermont. Alaska too now.

But, you're rght. That's the way it _should_ be.

I think it would be better to get reciprocity between all the States and leave the Fed. Gov. out of it.


----------



## john doe. (Aug 26, 2006)

I tend to agree with Mike Barham. Anytime we put things in the feds hands they screw it up. We have the Tenth amendment to the constitution and we need to use it more.


----------



## waterburybob (May 7, 2006)

I would love to see a national CCW pass, but I'm not very optimistic about it happening.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

I know it is apt to have many heacahes, but it would be nice to see a way to work it out nationally.


----------



## 44magFMJ (Aug 14, 2006)

OMSBH44 said:


> .........What are the "certain requirements" that must be met?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## 44magFMJ (Aug 14, 2006)

Mike Barham at Galco said:


> I think "national carry" may be a mistake. Once the federal behemoth gets its filthy hands on CCW, it can do what it wants to our "right to carry.".............


I totally agree. Right-to-carry is a bird of a different feather when comparing it to auto registration recognition from state to state.


----------



## michael t (Jan 26, 2006)

Keep the Feds away from my carry lic. I can carry any concealed weapon I want. My lic. is a deadly weapon permit not pistol. Its honored in several states . I know and check the laws before I travel as most states only have gun. . I don't want federal gov. messing. They can't do anything right keep them a way. Hillary would love to mess with this.


----------



## Davidq762 (Aug 28, 2006)

*No Permit Required!*

The way I sse it, a permit is a form of prior restraint, and therefore an infringement on our God-given Natural right (See: http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/LawsofNature.html, http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/CitizensRight.html, and http://gunshowonthenet.com/SecondAmend/TheRight.html.

ALL government was specifically denied access to We The People's Right of Self-Defense, from ANY source of danger. Now, if we can just get our supposed 'representatives' to see the truth of how it *should* be..... :smt076


----------



## MrNRA (Aug 29, 2006)

*Reciprocity*

We do not want a national CCW. What we should be looking for is national reciprocity. Leave all the licensing to the states where it should be and just make a law that all states have to honor all licenses issued by any state. Kind of like what your driver's licenses right now.

It would be much nicer if we could all exercise our rights without a license. But the reality is in this political environment that I'll never happen immediately. We have to keep taking small steps until we reach our goals. But we all have to be optimistic. It doesn't help when some gun owners are pessimistic.


----------



## js (Jun 29, 2006)

michael t said:


> Hillary would love to mess with this.


She would be pretty tame compared to Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, etc. But, she's still a demo___<--(fill in the blank), ...and demo____s<--(fill in the blank) like to take away gun rights...one hi-cap mag at a time.. :smt011

But I agree, Keep the CCW in the states control, not the federal governments. If the feds get a hold of it, it would be a disaster...


----------

