Don't get me wrong. From a purely personal perspective, I would love it if this got rammed down the smarmy little throats of the Mass., Md. and Cal. People's Soviet Legislatures. And I can see a great constitutional law argument for requiring states to recognize each other's permits, both in terms of the privileges and immunities clause, the equal protection clause, and incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
But as a matter of policy and strategy, it actually makes sense to strengthen the several States' conceptions of themselves as sovereign entities, especially on this ground. Why? First, the federal government would have to justify its regulation of state ccw recognition as part of the commerce clause, which would just continue the expansion of federal power. Second, the precedent set by 34 states creating a compact for the mutual recognition of state firearms laws would weigh heavily against further federal regulation of the field. Third, it satisfies my federalist and libertarian leanings by allowing the states to decide for themselves how they want to go on this issue. In other words, if the citizens of Mass want to keep dying and getting raped or assaulted because they're afraid that law-abiding people will turn into maniacs just because they have a gun, fine. As a libertarian, I don't want to force them to do anything they don't want to do. I will also, however, exercise my prerogative to (1) denigrate their sh--ty little state every chance I get, and (2) not go there because I wouldn't feel safe. Fourth, leaving aside that RKBA is a God-given right, the major thrust of the Second Amendment is that States need the means to defend themselves against a tyrannical federal government. Peoples Republics like Mass, MD and Cal. don't want to do that and, in fact, would rather that we were all run by the U.N. or WTO or the EU or something like that. Forcing them to acknowledge individual Second Amendment rights wouldn't help - they've already given up anyway.
The examples of England and Australia are all too clear to people like us, that banning guns doesn't bring about the promised reduction in crime. But many people not like us here in the US don't get it. Sometimes, I wonder what would happen if all gun owners and gun rights activists were to get up and, with a unified front, abandon one state in particular. CA is probably too big to possibly get this to work, but how about MD, CT, or NJ? Have the NRA encourage its members to leave the state, and stop opposing any new gun prohibitions. Ditto GOA, SAS, etc. Have campaigns that say "You don't want gun owners living here, so we are leaving - to show you the result of what you are seeking to accomplish." Maybe the state-level gun grabbers would even pay moving expenses for gun owners to vacate.
If that were to happen, I predict of course a huge jump in crime rates, which the gun rights folks could then say you can't blame it on ordinary gun owners - we all left the state! You either have to blame it on common criminals, which we have been saying all along, or on the politicians who have been trying to create this utopia for years except for our resistance, which we have now abandoned. You voted for them to make your bed for you, now you get to sleep in it. Nighty night!