I disagree. On a matter of first principle, both state and national governments are obligated to protect fundamental rights and liberties of the people. Among these is the guarantee of the right of the people to bear arms, which shall not be infringed. I believe that states do not have the authority to infringe the right to bear arms … so this issue of usurpation of states’ powers is a non-sequitur.

Do you also oppose 2A incorporation because it would usurp states’ authority to regulate arms? Generally, no, because we believe that infringing the right to arms is beyond the authority of any governmental body. The writing is on the wall. If there shall remain any doubt about this at the current time, those doubts must vanish when the 2A is incorporated against the states.

Seriously, I did.

Thanks for posting the real info!

If not eliminate:

At least drop the 1,000′ restriction as grossly outdated given most states lack of permits required for open and car carry.

Better, and more consistent, make it exactly resemble the terms of Park Carry, “as per the law of the state”.

I’m a bit indifferent about the residency part – while I think it would be a legal and Constitutional landmine to use federal law to allow someone to ignore their own state’s laws by getting a permit from another state, I also liked the idea of people in restrictive may-issue localities being able to effectively thumb their noses at the local power mongers who decide who’s “important” enough to get a permit.

The bit about out of state permits being equal to unrestricted permits is good. It’s easy to see those same local power mongers treating out of state permits as restricted just to discourage others from relying on this law – something that would probably take years and tens of thousands of dollars to sort out in the Courts, and ruin at least one person’s life in the process.