How would you have a CCW be treated like a driver's license? What would be your criteria?

How would you have a CCW be treated like a driver's license? What would be your criteria?

Annual competency testing with any and all carry weapons and when involved in a good shoot it has to be one of the models he's tested with? Psych evaluation? Limitations on carry caliber based on area (no AP in urban settings to prevent overpenetration, etc)?

Be American
18yo+
Caliber must be at least 9mm unless backup gun
Not a violent felon

Currently, CCW and buying a handgun are both 21+ years old, right?

What makes you say 18?

How about 21 for civies, 18 for police, firefighters, and military including former with honorable and retired and finally 18+ for open carry?

Only whites get guns. Niggers are animals so they don't get the 2nd amendment

Federal Carry
Strict, intended to be the highest standard and unquestionable
Minimum age: 21 for civilians, 18 for police, military, firefighters concealed and everyone open.
Annual competency tests including break down, reassembly, accuracy, speed, and under pressure. No exceptions. Must be able to hit within 2 inches at 15m.
Psych/Mental health evaluation
No violent felonies

State Carry
Up to the state. Intended to be determined individually.

Federal Carry overrides State Carry. If they cannot attain the high standard of Federal, the state may say that they cannot have a gun or provide standards they consider unreasonable.

---

How about something like that?

How about, now hear me out here. How about you shut the Fuck up, go ahead and assume I am armed and just be a polite mother fucker? K? Problem solved.

Reeks of Antifa.

The idea is for universal carry to be supported by law. Law made for the people and to serve the people, not the other way around. It doesn't surprise me that Antifa scum can't understand the concept considering that their idea of activism is random acts of violence such as this post suggests.

You dense motherfucker.

The 2nd Amendment IS my ccl.

If you were to assume I an armed (which would be a fair assumption) being polite to me and not a general asshole would be in your best interest. As I would make the same assumption on you, we would be a pair of polite fuckers. Adding all these feel good "regulations" just serves to give you reason to think I might not be armed.... See the issue shithead? Call me antifa again and your daughter gets blacked.

>calls me dense
>implies that being rude is justification for deadly force
Enjoy going to jail for brandishing, assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, or murder in addition to being shot in the mouth the moment you try to pull.

I believe in constitutional carry, to be clear, but this is about enabling 2A while also ensuring public safety sufficient to assuage the reasonable concerns of states while also overriding individual state legislation.

You should be polite whether someone is armed or not. It's Antifa lines of thought that might makes right, you degenerate scum. But no, please keep playing the tough guy. See how long it takes you to wonder whether the holes or the lead poisoning will kill you first when suddenly you've gained 12 individual instances of metal weights.

You can legally own a handgun at 18 if a family member (over 21) transfers it to you

Mobile posting. yeah, that's how I got my 1st pistol at 7. It's actually how I got my 2nd as well because I was too young at that time to buy it. Too impatient to wait until after I'd gotten out of boot camp to get it. Carry, though I'm fairly certain is restricted to 21 and above.

"that's how I got" is misleading I suppose and isn't actually an example of that because it was never transferred to me actually, now that I read it back. Just that in my head, it was in my possession since then so it equated to mine.

>license
>2nd Amendment
Should I get a license for the First Amendment too?

The right to bear arms as a militia is not the same thing as carrying them in society. I personally believe that anyone who thinks guns are "scary" or whatever childish shit needs to get the fuck over it, crime as a whole is on a downward spike and gun ownership and carry is through the roof.

The issue lies in the ability to respect state's rights while also enabling the constitution to ring true. The Federal Carry thing I proposed would make well-trained, competent carriers be an obtainable aspect of society in every single state with incentives to maintain this high standard. The license proves that you have demonstrated competency and knowledge sufficient to be unquestionable unless its use is abused.

Your statement is intentionally narrow-minded. This is meant to enable something closer to true constitutional carry than what is currently in place, such as California and Hawaii's ability to basically tell those that want to carry, no matter who they are, to go fuck themselves.

Think it through instead of just spouting the same tired meme arrows over and over any time it's mentioned.

You're coming up with excuses to license something that has no business being licensed. The militia is The People, not a military organization. The right of the People to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed. It's actually pretty simple to understand.

California and Hawaii are violating the Constitution. The answer is not more regulation, but less.

I understand your very simple point, I simply think that your simplicity has caused you to overlook something.

Not every state institutes constitutional carry.

This federal license would override state law allowing you to go over their head and clear any and all doubt about your character, competence, etc.

It would allow you to sidestep their faggotry completely, not add on top of it. It's not required IN ADDITION TO, merely another option. Additionally, the training obtained through the Federal method ensures that licensees are capable with their firearms. Cops, for example, miss too often when SHTF. Bubba Fudd isn't gonna fare any better unless he undergoes that training himself. Having a method that ensures competency will do nothing but normalize guns and their carry as well as ensure a higher degree of safety and effectiveness.

How are you not getting this?

The Second Amendment is my CCW. I live in Wyoming and can carry open or concealed without a damn license. If the other states can't do it, then their states are in violation of the Constitution. You are trying to saddle me with extra regulation because California is a Marxist shithole, and that makes perfect sense to you.

Wrong, your reading comprehension is incredibly poor. You would have to gain nothing, but if you did gain it you could go to Marxist shitholes and tell them to eat your nuts.

Read every word instead of searching for key terms.

No criteria. I'd even go so far as to say let felons have their rights back after a period of time, esp if it was a non-violent offense.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

You are trying to regulate a right I already have in my own state. A license is a fucking permit, and we don't need any more goddamn permits. I already think of California and Hawaii as foreign countries and never go to either one. They need to loosen their regulations before I will consider them to be actual Americans. Quit telling me that more regulations equal more freedom, and change the laws in your own fucked up state instead of saddling me with new license requirements in the name of freedom.

How about no? How about no federal database with CCW holders, no to "mental health" checks, no to "annual" anything.

Maybe best to go after low hanging fruit if you want to save lives and reduce gun violence. Ban niggers. More practically, attack black crime instead of the few cases of crazies shooting people. 100% efficacy isn't going to happen.

I agree with nonviolent felons getting it back after a period of good behavior. I also would like for a system to be in place where anyone can carry over age 18. For God's sake, you can fight and die in war and they'll give you a gun, but you can't buy one for yourself?

I'm in Virginia currently, from a military family, that's lived in Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Virginia, and both Carolinas. I firmly believe that these restrictions on magazine size and such are fucking foolish and that they can fuck off with their regulation. The fact that you're still not reading it, instead just making the emotional cry of NO LAWS NO LAWS NO LAWS even when they're intended to suit people just like you that want to be able to carry anywhere speaks volumes. Enjoy this parting (You).

Yeah, I'm against a database as well. mental health checks I acknowledge can be abused, which is why I'd like to say Federal would be less susceptible to bullshit like in Cali and their attempts to register gun owners with that ammo registration bullshit. As for annual testing, I don't see the problem with that however. It's mostly to maintain competency and ensure that people that carry and want to be able to use it anywhere anytime go to a range at least once a year with the gun they carry. Why are you against annual testing?

Yeah, black crime is a huge issue. Societal reform would be nice, but my intent when I started this thinking was to sidestep states that don't want to let people carry. Go over their heads, like speaking to the manager when the cashier is a cunt.

Shall not be infringed.

PS to By that I mean crime wasn't eve a factor of consideration when I went into this. I just wanted to be able to have people tell idiots to shut their fucking mouths.

That's the idea, yeah. To enable you to take it freely to any state with unquestionable competence and character.

>which is why I'd like to say Federal would be less susceptible to bullshit like in Cali
>laughingwomanwithsalad.jpg
You've never worked for the federal government, have you?

>Why are you against annual testing?
>why are you against adding yearly requirements that give the government a yearly chance to revoke said permit?

>To enable you to take it freely to any state with unquestionable competence and character.
>see, if we infringe on it this way, it's no longer infringed in this other way

Also, back to:
>Yeah, I'm against a database as well.
This is literally what your stupid plan would create.

retarded. if you can own a gun you can carry it. no license or criteria required. see 2nd amendment in the bill of rights

>why are you against adding yearly requirements that give the government a yearly chance to revoke said permit?
Good point. I hadn't considered that, assuming it would be abused, but I do believe that if you're incompetent with your handgun you shouldn't be carrying it. Normally it's a social responsibility, but this would be covered by the states. Federal just overrides the state and if you met it would allow you to carry anywhere. If you lived in a state with constitutional carry and didn't intend to travel to Commiefornia or some shit, you'd never even have to bother.

The Federal testing in this case just would prove to every state that they have no leg to stand on regarding their counter of "but he's probably irresponsible and bad at it." Not that if you can't use the Federal they're going to take all your guns and fuck your dog in front of you.

>Would create a database
I don't like them, but if it's tracking licenses and it's voluntary to enter, I don't see a problem with it whatsoever. Don't like it, opt out and carry on as before.

>calls me retarded
>is blatantly retarded
see door

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the supreme law of the land, and any state law that violates it is invalid and should be challenged in court. There is no need for more federal regulation. That is not an emotional argument. You live too close to the District of Criminals and apparently have bought the bullshit line that more regulation makes us more free. Quit telling me that new laws are intended to suit people just like me. It doesn't give me the warm and fuzzy feeling you're aiming for. The laws we need are already in place, they just aren't followed by some states. Have a nice day.

>Gun restrictions
>US flag
You're a fucking traitor

Making people jump through hoops every year is infringing.

>Don't like it, opt out and carry on as before.
Except were this enacted, how many states are just going to adopt it as their own practice(or get pressure from the feds to do so) and you'll end up with a de facto federal database? It's a shit idea and reeks of someone who just wants to enact gun control without seeming like they want to enact gun control.

No more compromise .

EVERY GUN LAW IS AN INFRINGEMENT

>"shall not be infringed"

> treated like a drivers license
> yearly competency tests

You do realize you can't have it both ways right? It is currently exactly like a drivers license test. You take a written and hands on test once, and you're good for life. You must renew every 5 years, but a retest isn't required.

I've never heard of a yearly competency drivers test, although in my opinion that would be great. It would get so many horrible teenage, old, and women drivers off the road.

>shall not be infringed

nogunz detected with your "at least 9mm" jewery

what the fuck makes you think a firefighter is especially qualified to carry a firearm? shall not be infringed, not "shall not be infringed if you're a public servant or ex-mil"

and who decides what's on the "competency tests?" some liberal lawmaker that wants to make sure only certain people can carry? and now you have to be able to read and write to exercise your right to a firearm?

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

>trying to make state-by-state legislation restricting firearms carry useless, providing an avenue for constitutional carry under good faith and with documentation of competence and good moral standing
>traitorous despite obvious expansion of 2A rights

Have you tried reading it?

The alternative of "ALL GUNS EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME" solves nothing. It wouldn't cause any more harm, the criminals don't fucking listen anyway. It just makes honest citizens into criminals thanks to shitty legislation, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Federal would override state. It would allow you to bypass more restrictive no-go bullshit, such as Hawaii and Cali, by proving all these criteria periodically. It's impossible for this to infringe FURTHER as it's entirely voluntary and can only be equal to or more free than state legislation.

I can't imagine that many would. I would think that most states would just keep things as they were, constitutional carry states would remain so. Pressure from federal I would hope the state would tell them to go fuck themselves.

For being able to tell anyone that questions you to fuck off, I'd like for there to be grounds behind that. Some way of proving beyond a doubt your level of competence. Voluntary licensing to operate dangerous machinery any place in the US. Aren't there special vehicle licenses where you have to go through all kinds of shit before they let you operate it otherwise you might kill yourself or others? I thought motorcycles were like that. Maybe that's just how it was in the military. Buddy of mine went through months of bullshit because those cunts at the DMV kept failing him because he's military. Apparently they do that to all of them.

>shall not be infringed
Tired.

>Firefighter
More morally sound, responsible, held to a higher standard already.

>Test criteria
Up for debate. I say killhouse type shit, defensive course. Pass, you get the card.

Rather, "screaming the alternative of"