Same here. If the feds can today force states to adopt conceal
carry, they can tomorrow force to abandon. It is a dangerous precedent leaving no defensive measure, opening a flank.
Also it is poorly and weakly worded. 1. Frankly it is a constitutional right and more than a mere Civil right, but something of the order of defending from sedition against destructions of our rights, power balance and safety of the nation. This bill should reassert the constitutionality of the 2A, reminding historically how weapons were used to defend people helping free slaves and how the KKK restricted them in their states.
2. It reads like a weapon treaty assuming we are predators when this is about self defense and no treaty of limitted hunt should apply. There is no licence and knowledge of who is armed and not armed at the federal
level. It is recipe for divisive lists.
The last Senate version of a similar bill adopted several amendments offered by Barbara Boxer which basically said that in order for a State CCW permit to be recognized nationally, a given State would have to adopt the restrictions of the most restrictionist States, in effect creating a Federal CCW license similar to the new standards (Real ID) for driver licenses.
Any bill which could pass the Senate will be terrible.
Congress should, instead, pass 49-state permit reciprocity for the District of Columbia, which a) is specifically within their authority and b) does not create a Federal police power infringing on Statte authority.
No, it's nothing like that. It doesn't force states to adopt concealed carry at all. You have to have a permit in your own state, and the state you travel to has to allow permits. No state is forced to give permits that doesn't already.
There is no permutation of this bill that could lead to the Feds cancelling state CCW laws.
"Also it is poorly and weakly worded... It reads like a weapon treaty"
Did you actually read it, or are you basing this on the content of news accounts about it? Your comments do not describe the text of the bill.