Pssst...we already have a "national requirement" for concealed carry.
I quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice how it doesn't expand on itself to include anything like...
"...except for concealed carrying of handguns, which shall be left up to individual states so they can charge idiotic fees for "permits" and classes, create state-wide data bases which can be used in the event their governor decides to declare a state of emergency and sends uniformed goons to their houses to take the guns we know they have now, and so they can create enough confusion surrounding something so simple that the citizens of the country simply give up the fight and accept things like permits as the norm...thereby infringing on the rights we already acknowledged here in this second amendment to our Constitution because we get this strange feeling deep inside that some states or political parties may decide to infringe upon this right sometime in the future..."
The Constitution is actually very specific as to what the federal government can do, and what they felt would be better left to the states. In comparison, the federal government was highly restricted in scope compared to the states, yet they still felt it was important enough to include a little ditty in there as it applied to gun ownership.
Doesn't anyone find that even a little telling?
The Constitution is clear on the matter: There were somethings that were felt to be important enough to be spelled out in it's body so that future leaders would never take advantage of the citizens in certain ways. Gun ownership, and the
bearing of those guns, were things they felt should not be infringed upon.
How are we now arguing and debating over something so simple? :banghead: