Lets see, the conflict you are referring to is the call for a national permit system (because here in CA I do not stand a chance of getting a CC permit and I was of the opinion that I would stand a better chance with a national system) and the obvious conflicting aspect that I stand for our freedoms?
I agree they are in conflict, why should a permit be required to carry in the first place?
The answer is that I would like the situation to be different and allow my right to carry to be legal. If need be, I suspect I will violate this requirement if my safety were at stake. I already do not intend to comply with a requirement that I turn my weapons over to authorities.
Thank you for responding. As you may suspect the main thrust my query was meant to evoke an analysis of the conflict on your part and I have succeeded in that effort. However, it was also meant to point out that advocating for a national government permit to replace that of a state permit to overcome violations of the Second Amendment would only subject your right to carry to the changes of the political makeup of federal law makers. The case of the assault weapons ban being one illustration. It is my hope that by pointing out this conflict that your remarks regarding the issuance of permits be reconsidered.
I add that as a former long time resident of California I have empathy with your predicament. I recognized the futility of attempting to change the political mindset which is dominant in that state and fled to Arizona rather than risk life and freedom of movement as a result of exercising a Constitutional right. I admit to minor cowardice due to my being long in the tooth and having obligations to family best served by remaining alive and free to a limited degree. I consider myself as being a refugee who has fled from a communist state with the knowledge that the flight will be a brief respite before the eventual confrontation occurs. Governor Brown’s most recent remarks concerning the supposed easy access to weapons of war in the adjoining states indicate the political poison of California is intended to influence our legislative representatives and those at the federal level; remarks which represent a threat to this redoubt. Here we have the benefit of Constitutional carry. Open or concealed, rifle or sidearm, afoot or in our vehicle, without the requirement of governmental permission. A concealed weapons permit is only required to meet the conditions for interstate travel to carry weapons concealed in those states where the permits are honored. To date our legislators remain committed to maintaining our freedom in this regard although as I stated the confrontation is seemingly inevitable.
Again, I thank you for the response and the open expression of your intention within it.