In response to Senator Dianne Feinstein’s soon to be introduced horribly restrictive, unconstitutional assault weapons ban that assaults the Second Amendment and the private property rights of law abiding citizens, this legislation is designed to provide the framework for a National Concealed Carry Permit to be issued to qualifying adults and allow the unrestricted carry of concealed arms that may otherwise be prohibited by federal, state and local laws. Such places include schools, universities, court houses, federal buildings, and airlines.
States, counties, and local governments regulate the concealed and open carry of firearms. The Federal Government has protected some places as firearms-restricted areas. This has restricted the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and others. It has created gun-free zones that have become targets for terrorists, murderers, rapists, and robbers.
This act will supersede the local or state government’s authority to restrict the carrying of firearms and enhance the security of citizens within these areas and establish standards that go beyond the average citizens’ ability to carry concealed firearms. This act would create an armed citizen militia designed for the sole purpose of protecting the citizenry from heinous acts of violence.
Not everyone will be qualified or make the commitment to the process of obtaining a permit. The selection process should seek out the individual who has the mental ability and sound judgment to intercede in a situation where they may be called upon to take a human life in the defense of another. This is a significant point as most citizens carry firearms or seek concealed carry permits for their own protection and may be hesitant to intercede on behalf of another.
National organizations that have a demonstrated record of providing firearms training could be utilized to train or assist in the training of these citizens.
This legislation is intended to elicit thousands of volunteers who are trained and willing to use a firearm in defense of themselves and innocent victims on a national level.
This act encourages the states to pass “right to carry” legislation and continue to issue concealed carry permits for their citizens. Expansion of legal concealed carry rights and citizen militias within each state will further prevent crime and establish a safer society.
During natural disasters, emergency personnel and law enforcement can be quickly overwhelmed as efforts are maximized towards the disaster relief effort, leaving citizens to fend off looters, robbers, and rapists. An armed citizenry is usually the first and sometimes only line of defense.
The Federal Concealed Carry and Mass Murder Prevention Act of 2013
Purpose: Establish a means by which selected citizens could apply and receive federal authorization to carry a loaded concealed firearm on their person, for the explicit purposes of self protection and preventing terrorist activities and mass murder, allowing permit holders to carry concealed in places and institutions where firearms are generally prohibited, and promote the legal use of firearms and the safety of citizens.
Here is the framework of this legislation:
• The “Federal Agency” shall provide an application process and screening of citizens to include
o Background check
o Psychological testing
o Substance abuse
• The “Federal Agency” shall oversee a training program that includes
o Basic Firearm instruction
o Standard LE accuracy/evolution qualification with the firearm of choice
o Shoot-no-shoot qualification
o Re-certification of existing permit holders
• The “federal agency” shall appoint an office within each jurisdiction for the processing and administration of this program.
• The “Federal Agency” shall oversee the use of force and assemble shooting boards to examine and make determination whether use of force was justified.
• Minimum qualifications
o 25 years of age
o Psychological test
o Substance abuse test
o LE firearms use of force training
o LE shoot no shoot training
o Firearms qualification
• Permit holders will be required to submit data detailing when, where, and how often they carried concealed so as to direct recruitment efforts in geographic areas of the country with insufficient numbers of persons carrying concealed.
• Permit holders will immediately report any use of force.
• Permit holders will be held harmless from civil liability and criminal prosecution if the shooting review board determines that said permit holder acted in good faith and in accordance with use of force training and standards.
• Permit holders shall carry their permit on their person at all times when carrying a concealed firearm.
• Permit holders will bypass TSA screening at all airports and be recognized as sky marshal status aboard commercial aircraft.
• Each member of the military shall carry a side arm or long gun while in uniform.
• Each state shall develop a plan to train citizens in firearms responsibility and encourage the appropriate use of firearms for the purpose of self-defense.
• Permit holders can have their permits revoked at anytime.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
While, at first glance, some may think this sounds like a good idea, it is fatally flawed in so many respects I’ll only hit the lowlights.
According to the 2nd amendment, there should be NO NEED for ANY “license” from the federal, or any other government. RIGHTS are not licensed. Priviledges may be. This proposal would effectively convert our right into a priviledge, which could be denied, or revoked at any time. THAT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
The correct approach would be to repeal ALL laws that restrict the right of law-abiding individuals to keep and bear arms.
Most of the “requirements” and “qualifications” suggested are arbitrary and capricious, such as, but not just, the age requirement of 25. Citizens are bound by contracts, able to vote, and “mature enough” to risk their lives in military service at 18. They should be afforded their constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, not precluded from their right to self-defense.
Many of the other requirements are intrusive and onerous, infringing the right and giving the state power over the exercise thereof that the Founders would NEVER have contemplated, let alone agreed to.
For example, the onerous training and testing requirements proposed, which is unnecessary on its face in light of the fact that the federal government’s own statistics show that armed civilians acting in self-defense (or the defense of others) are more than 5.5 times LESS likely than the police to accidentally shoot an innocent person, despite the fact that they JUSTIFIABLY shoot many times more criminals than do the police.
Guns are used about 2.5 million times per year by “regular citizens” to stop or recent crime in the US. In the vast majority of cases, no shots are fired. When shots are fire, the numbers show that the citizens are OVERWHELMINGLY responsible in their use of their weapons.
The vast majority of crime in the US is caused by gang and drug activity. Disarming the law-abiding simply creates more helpless victims and does NOTHING to stop criminal activity, but rather promotes it.
I could go on and on. Most of your requirements and provisions are simply cave-ins to the fallacious idea that government restrictions on our rights will promote safety and reduce crime.
As Ben Franklin said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In this case the sought after safety would be an illusion.
aNYTHING AT ALL COMRAD Feinstein PROPOSES WILL NEVER BE IN YOUR BEST INTEREST.
tHAT’S A GUARUNTEE.
You make perfect sense about how this would still be a disarming of “regular citizens” and that just isn’t good enough. We can still take care of ourselves even though the fed. government doesn’t think so…We can just take care of ourselves like we always have……..
A couple of typos crept into my post. Here’s a corrected version:
While, at first glance, some may think this sounds like a good idea, it is fatally flawed in so many respects I’ll only hit the lowlights.
According to the 2nd amendment, there should be NO NEED for ANY “license” from the federal, or any other government. RIGHTS are not licensed. Priviledges may be. This proposal would effectively convert our right into a priviledge, which could be denied, or revoked at any time. THAT IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
The correct approach would be to repeal ALL laws that restrict the right of law-abiding individuals to keep and bear arms.
Most of the “requirements” and “qualifications” suggested are arbitrary and capricious, such as, but not just, the age requirement of 25. Citizens are bound by contracts, able to vote, and “mature enough” to risk their lives in military service at 18. They should be afforded their constitutional right to equal treatment under the law, not precluded from their right to self-defense.
Many of the other requirements are intrusive and onerous, infringing the right and giving the state power over the exercise thereof that the Founders would NEVER have contemplated, let alone agreed to.
For example, the onerous training and testing requirements proposed, which are unnecessary on their face in light of the fact that the federal government’s own statistics show that armed civilians acting in self-defense (or the defense of others) are more than 5.5 times LESS likely than the police to accidentally shoot an innocent person, despite the fact that they JUSTIFIABLY shoot many times more criminals than do the police.
Guns are used about 2.5 million times per year by “regular citizens” to stop or prevent crime in the US. In the vast majority of cases, no shots are fired. When shots are fired, the numbers show that the citizens are OVERWHELMINGLY responsible in their use of their weapons.
The vast majority of crime in the US is caused by gang and drug activity. Disarming the law-abiding simply creates more helpless victims and does NOTHING to stop criminal activity, but rather promotes it.
I could go on and on. Most of your requirements and provisions are simply cave-ins to the fallacious idea that government restrictions on our rights will promote safety and reduce crime.
As Ben Franklin said, “They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In this case the sought after safety would be an illusion.
Carl, Yes, this legislation doesn’t have a shot in hell given the dolts in Washington. Since the second amendment was written, there have been a number of laws that have curtailed our rights. They have all stood the test of time and have been upheld in the courts, so your comment that we don’t need any more laws because we have the 2nd Amendment is flawed. Right now, today, you cannot carry a firearm into a school, a courthouse, some city government offices, an airplane, etc. Just go ahead and try it and see how far you get quoting the second amendment. What I proposed was a framework, just like Diane Feinstein posted on her website. It is meant for discussion purposes, talking points, etc. It is a conservative alternative to what she is proposing, and something that might actually help the problem of defenseless targets called “gun free zones”.
I live in a right to carry state. I still cannot carry into a bar or tavern, school or university, city hall, airport, or someone else’s home without permission. If I choose to get a concealed carry permit, I still cannot carry in those places either. My concealed carry permit, issued by the state government, allows me reciprocity in other states that recognize mine. I have to know that state’s law so I don’t illegally carry my firearm when I travel there.
Castle doctrine also varies from state to state and really has no valid point here. If you were defending your home, under a castle doctrine or stand your ground law, state or local law, you could still be charged with a crime or sued in civil court. It happens all the time, you should read the paper.
My article has nothing to do with owning a gun or what you do with it. It has everything to do with allowing citizens a mechanism to carry it in more places than they can now. If you are against that then you should do a little more research before you spout off on something that you are probably for.
If you think that I am wrong, strap on your shoulder holster, load up your weapon, stop by the school, go to the airport and board a plane for Chicago. Let’s see how far you get.
It is a right to carry issue. Your “nobody is going to tell me what to do because I have a constitution in my pocket” attitude, does not really help the argument.
My point about not needing more laws was that the unconstitutional ones we have should be repealed.
My problem with your “framework” is that it’s a framework for more licensing, mother may I?’s, intrusions into our privacy, and a whole lot of hoop jumping that just should not exist.
To “compromise” with the beast on “reasonable gun laws” is to give up rights that are supposed to be inalienable. To me, that’s a strategy to keep dying the death of a thousand cuts.
Wow….this is going to get real serious real fast.
But Carl. I like the idea you had and his has some of it in it. Training and acceptance to protect the citizens as well as themselves plus it hold them harmless with in the law of rightful shooting. I find a few things worthy of consideration. I agree with you in that there are no provisions for government intrusion in gun ownership and there should be none.
All of the arbitrary training, reporting, and permission slips from the state fly in the fact of the constitution and are unnecessary.
As far as holding people harmless for a justifiable shooting, that’s what our PA “Castle Doctrine” law is for.
It removes the previous “obligation to retreat” in the fact of a violent assault, allowing one to stand one’s ground and use force, including deadly force both at home and in any place one has a legal right to be (public places, etc.), and indemnifies one from civil liability so the thug’s family can’t sue you for shooting him.
It’s time that people DEMANE their rights be upheld. The control freak tyrants canb’t be allowed to continue to erode our rights.
My concern with a Federal permit is ….they now know you have a gun and if they decide to confiscate
guns, the know where they are. It makes it easier to take them away.
If you bought it from a licensed dealer, it is likely that they already have you and your firearm in a database.
There is much left to interpretation in that bill. It gives the sole power to government to decide who can or cannot carry. That is a red flag in my books, it infringes on a right given to all in the Constitution. She is trying to go in the back way to get gun control, be afraid, very afraid.
A federal concealed carry permit would give persons the right to carry in more places. If you are fine with a state carry permit, it would not infringe on that right, get your state permit and be limited to the requirements of the current laws of where you can carry. If you live in a right to carry state, or one that requires a permit, you are still limited to where you can carry and where you can’t. this would give people the right to carry in those places, expanding the limits of state law.
there was a reciprocity attempt that was stopped by Sen Fienstien last year. I can see some 10th amendment issues with it, so this is why i proposed a federal carry permit. Again this is a framework of what could be possible.
As to the infringement on the constitution issue you raised, if that were the case, every state’s authority to issue CCW permits would be a violation as well. So i don’t really see the point behind that comment.
Thanks for your comments
How come nothing was ever mentioned again about that Fast and Furious that you know and I know Obama knew about but would deny it if asked. It is totally dropped from the radar screen. Holder acts as dumb as he always did as well as covering for his ‘Bossman’ Obama. We think of killing over here, but look how many border guards are killed and nothing is ever done about it… That too has been forgotten. We have a jillion border crossers coming over here daily who commit crimes un-noticed and unaccounted for… where did they get the guns — why they break in homes, what else!!! Look at the dopers who need a daily fix and are without money, they either rob, or break in a house, steal a gun for future use. Then we have the gangs who hate each other cause one treaded on their territory… more shooting.. Now some nitwit wants to have pot available for every one in some states… thus more and more dope heads will be available to steal, kill, among other things. Obama never wants to admit any of this. He thinks the people who own guns are the worst of the lot, when they are not the ones who go around killing people.
Thanks for the tag on the Ruger Forum. I read some of the comments over there and a couple of points. States would maintain their right to issue permits, no infringement on states rights, I am a big 10th amendment fan. Reciprocity is just that, you could get in a whole lot of trouble if you don’t research the other states law before carrying where you would normally carry in your own state. A national permit would be for those people that routinely travel or wish to carry where state and local laws prohibit it, or into gun free zones like schools, universities, etc. TSA and airplanes would be a pipe dream for sure!