In the USA, who should be permitted to carry a concealed weapon?

Question

I'm looking for opinion here.
Why should a certain person or group be excluded?
Should we limit the type of weapon that can be carried?
Should CC be federalized and a national permit issued?

>Thanks for all the answers I find it up lifting that so many people would include a training program and a proficancy test. My home state requires that you be 21, have no criminal record and a pulse.
Sometimes I'd like to see a national license, then I look at how they screw up so many things domestically and I think the States should keep it, with contiguous reciprocity. Then I look at how the states can screw stuff up and I sort of look down the Constiution road.
In the end I want to know that people carrying concealed have been checked out. But the criminals, well, enough said.

> I really don't understand how anyone can think a felon should be trusted with a gun. Maybe if it was credit card fraud or something, but what about a pedophile, or a bank robber? No way. I don't care if they have served their time.

Answer 1

Permit on national level so that when traveling, the holder doesn't have to worry about accidentally breaking a law. It's easy to do, some states require open carrying in a vehicle, others require concealed while in a vehicle and others do not allow any carrying of a firearm; only transporting in a case.

As for who can carry, it should be anyone who is legally capable of owning a handgun. So, anyone who is 21 or older, and can pass a background check. No drug use, not adjudicated mentally defective, no restraining orders, no felonies, that normal stuff.

As for whatever guns can be carried, if it is legal and the owner wants to carry it and can use it proficiently then they should be able to carry it.

Katie, you have to be the dumbest person here. Yes a felon is worse than us; obviously they cannot behave in this society. I have no felony convictions, so yes, I am better than any felon.

Answer 2

I'll tell you what I like the idea of a national permit. As for what types of weapons...no any handgun of any caliber and size and magazine capacity.
As for who can carry. Anybody 21 years old or older, not a current felon. After you get out of jail and paid your debt to society you know exactly where you will go if you commit a crime again. Let them own and carry. If everyone carries people will be less likely to commit a crime against people. Think about it. Every bank teller carries a .40 caliber Glock. If every teller carries and someone walks in with a shotgun or handgun, he may be pointing a gun at someone, but will have at least 5 more pointing back. Who will rob a convenience store when the night manager and stock boy are packing .357s. I doubt anyone would break in to someones home when everyone owns a AR-15 in each home....
This is my idea for homeland security....

Answer 3

Any American citizen that has a need or want to carry one. The right to keep and bear arms is a right not a privilege. If the justice system worked the bad guys wouldn't have guns because they wouldn't be walking around the street. Also if more citizens exercise their right to bear arms their would be far less criminals. Because they wouldn't only try to break into a house once. Then the justice that needs to be done will be done. And to everyone not allowed to carry because of the state they live in. Always Remember.
It is better to be tried by 12, Than carried by 6

Answer 4

The right to carry a gun as provided by the second ammendment should be properly belong to any CITIZEN OF THE U.S. The only exceptions being those who have been convicted of a felony or those diagnosed as being mentally unstable. The reasson for the exceptins are that a felon has already shown themself as being incapable of conducting themself in an acceptable responsible manner. The reason for excluding the mentally unstable is obvious.

Answer 5

An armed society is a polite society--I don't remember who said it, but it is true. Certainly there should be some restrictions on firearm ownership; but those restrictions should not be onerous. Our present system is a hodge-podge of state and local laws that merely make it difficult for honest citizens to buy, possess and use firearms. Whatever the laws for ownership are, those who can legally own them should be able to responsibly use them, including concealed carry. Should it be a natural standard? Of course, but I fear that a national standard today would more closely resemble California than Vermont.

Answer 6

If you don't have a criminal record, can pass a written and hands on proficiency test. All citizens that can do this should have a cwp. I think if you are going to carry the gun should be reasonably concealed. As far as federalization, it would be a hard thing to do but well worth it.

Answer 7

In my opinion, if you are eligible to legally purchase a pistol, you should legally be allowed to carry a pistol.
IF they enact a national carry permit, I feel certain that the requirments to get one will be more stringent than the requirments to obtain a state ccw.
If they had exemptions of carry for localles like Washington DC, Chicago, NYC and other citys that absolutely deny carry, they should be stamped on the license so there can be NO mistake where you can and can't carry.

Answer 8

Unfortunately our gooberments have been abriding the constitution since the inception. And beginning in 1934 with the federal firearms act the first action to revoke the constitutional liberty of firearms ownership was enacted.

One the 4473 Form it is clear who cannot purchase a firearm through legal channels, the 4473 was adopted in 1968 in an attempt to regulate and control who could legally purchase. As with most laws those who abide by the rules are not the people violating the laws.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 disallows certain people from owning firearms Felons included. That said, most felons who knowingly violate this do so with impunity. So I don't get the "felon" shouldn't own a gun argument, that is DUH?! Generally speaking felons that obtain and use a firearm break existing LAW.

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act) of 1993, Public Law 103-159, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was established for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to contact by telephone, or other electronic means, for information to be supplied immediately on whether the transfer of a firearm would be in violation of Section 922 (g) or (n) of Title 18, United States Code, or state law. The Brady Act is a public record and is available from many sources including the Internet at www.atf.treas.gov.

The NICS is a national system that checks available records on persons who may be disqualified from receiving firearms. The FBI developed the system through a cooperative effort with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and local and state law enforcement agencies. The NICS is a computerized background check system designed to respond within 30 seconds on most background check inquiries so the FFLs receive an almost immediate response. Depending on the willingness of state governments to act as a liaison for the NICS, the FFLs contact either the FBI or a designated state point-of-contact (POC) to initiate background checks on individuals purchasing or redeeming firearms, and in certain instances, firearm-related permits. The background check process, as performed by the FBI and by state POCs..

As with any abolition law intended to stop crime through "gun control" only hinders people with no ill intent from purchase, ownership and carry.

I don't believe federalizing CCW would do anything, I don't want NYC or San Francisco laws in my state, I don't want some liberal azzhole bureaucrat in DC dictating hunting policy based on federal guidelines. It should remain up to the states.

The right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. But infringement occurs.
Frankly some people should not have firearms, but do. This only presses the matter that those who go through the correct legal processes should A. be allowed to carry as they see fit and B. not be hindered by another federal law governing such.
Should the type be limited? NO
We already limit certain types: Illegal Aliens, Felons and nutcases. That said HR2640 supposedly was to be more proactive in stopping adjudicated nutjobs from owning firearms. That said there is a point of contention about who does the adjudication. By the code it defers to the "court" not a MH professional.

Should CCW be federalized? NEVER.
Should there be a National Permit? NO FRIGGIN WAY.

Should states adopt reciprocity? I believe quite a few are and it's growing.

As with DCA I would rather die then live on my knees. If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, and the outlaws will include the storm troopers of the federal authority of which you speak.

If there are one thing that should be changed is that EVERYONE over the age of 18 should OWN a firearm and know how to use it. As with what others have said and the statistics back it up, an armed society IS a polite society.


I've been a hunter gun owner my entire life. I believe the declaration of independence outlines there was and is a primary reason for individual firearms ownership above the sporting issues. That reason is as follows:

--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —

Answer 9

" Id rather die on my feet than live on my knees" The Second Amendment is all that really matters in answering this question.** I believe that pretty much says it all in regards to responsible gun use & ownership.** Everything else that came after that is B. S. < "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.** The only thing lacking or absent today is living up to and honoring what the Second Amendment says regarding gun ownership.** Regarding handguns, rifles, shotguns.......*

Answer 10

i do no longer understand...the instructions point out the submitting fee is $34.00. The renewal is $sixty 5.00. nonetheless, you ought to bounce by a great form of hoops. Take out an advert to placed up which you're utilising for a enable??? what form of crap is that? In Virginia you ought to instruct a secure shooter certificates and that i had to pay $50.00 for a a million hour type. $25.00 for the submitting fee. in case you bypass the heritage verify they're obligated to subject you a enable.