I'm just not interested in new schemes to limit an individual civil right. ...
MarkPenn, as sikacz has summarized, I too came to this general conclusion. Without rehashing the whole thread, my motivation was derived from the challenge of driving from Nevada to Utah, Arizona and New Mexico. I simply wanted some uniformity as the details of where and when carrying is allowed.
After a lot of discussion ... I did come to the conclusion that sikacz has stated, with some provisos.
1) While I do think of the 2A as a fundamental right, I have seen no one tackle the problem of people we all know who should not own guns (I refuse a flame suit for this). Therefore, I am out of step with others on this forum who do not agree that the Driver's License model should apply to guns (save me the protests, we simply disagree.) As a society, we have decided that some licensing and certification is required for many potential dangerous activities: driving, heavy machinery, dispensing drugs, doing surgery, flying an airplane, and so on. Are these requirements a limit on my rights? Sure. But I would rather not live in a world without them. So I am out of step with many people here who believe that the default is that one can carry unless proven otherwise. I believe that firearms are dangerous enough that some training and certification (preferably without fee requirements at all) should be normal. For example, I have not seen any arguments here that a 3 year old has a hard 2A right. So people do believe some limits are OK (or at least most people ;-) My solution is that all States should be "shall issue" and not "may issue = not issue".
2) I assume some members here also believe that all firearms and ammunition are covered under the 2A. I do not. I am happy with the limitations on fully automatic firearms or incendiary ammunition. I am unhappy
that those limitations are Federal, and that they imply a 'thin entering wedge' perhaps leading to more restrictions. I have no idea why rules on Interstate commerce extend to any 100% in-State activity. Thus, in an actually Constitution-driven world, I can only visualize restrictions on fully automatic weapons on a State by State basis - AND if that is OK (some here would argue not), then I can also imagine that California could go "semi-Australia" and still be within the Constitution (wheel guns and bolt/lever/pump rifles only). However, I do find that California's "may issue = not issue" laws are in violation of the 2A - I have no idea why this is not clear to the Courts. Again, I know many disagree - I am simply trying to articulate that this is all a bit more complex than the 2A simply annotates a universal 'right' - and I do know many people on the forum disagree.
OK, I would beg my brothers-and-sisters in arms to accept that the above two provisos come from a rational point of view, even if they stink of pragmatism (my great moral flaw). But moreover, sans pragmatism, they reflect some basic principles. And I respect the contrasting opinions and points of view. The forum seems populated with rational people, not crazies.
The single best argument I have heard about not going to a universal standard for carry States (including some Gold/Silver/Bronze model) is that such an agreement would necessarily:
... 1) Obviate existing in-State laws to create the needed alignment
... 2) Create a single target for the antis to attack and possibly destroy
... therefore a Universal plan on firearms by a subset of the States could be the death knell of the 2A and create a "United States of California".
And let's not ignore the (to me new) concept that any regulation needs to be free or very close to free to avoid societal discrimination. In this, I totally agree with
Which can be issued via a competency test and free background check rather than an arbitrary process and expensive fee structure that puts it out of reach for many.