I posted two comments on another forum. I will will reprint them here (with my permission). Just keep in mind the second comment that I made was about a precedent for protection (exemption) from State Laws by the Feds in the early 1990's.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
First Comment
"With a Federal CCW Be careful what you ask for
We have to be concerned where this all will lead. Lets for a second call it a 'Federal Carry Permit'. With it you could carry open and concealed in all the States. So what if they put in the requirements that you have to have this permit for open carry. In some states, like Kentucky; it is possible to open carry right now without a permit.
So what if some laws were amended to make this 'permit' the only one that will be recognized and the state issued ones null and void. Lets say it happens. So in theory with this new permit, I would have to have one in order to open carry in KY?
Keep in mind down the line they could just add more conditions to the carry permit say to suit non pro 2A states like NJ. Maybe a restriction on caliber, it has to be holstered, mandatory gun locks while carrying in certain areas (you could carry, but the gun has to be locked).
Since this will be a federal permit, I have to assume it will have the same rights and restrictions across the land. I would assume some things that we take for granted now in Pro 2A States now could get eroded with this scheme. There will have to be some accommodations made to satisfy less than Pro 2A States. One size fits all?
I am all for all people to be to carry and protect themselves in any state. But lets be careful, very careful that the proposed "Federal Carry Permit" just doesn't just end up being a "National Gun License" in disguise. In one fell swoop,once this is in place. The 'powers that be' could just ban open and concealed carry and require all gun owners to get this permit just to keep their firearms. Then later on raise the cost of the permit and have more conditions and restrictions connected to it."
________________________________________________________________________________________
Second Comment : Precedent
"There was a precedent, if one can call it that. It did not involve firearms, but it did involve a Federal Agency and States and licensed individuals. Before deleting this, please read on.
There are laws on the books in some states called 'scanner laws'. Licensed amateur Radio Operators whose mobile radios also received police radio transmissions would be at risk in getting their radios confiscated and fined and possibly face jail time if caught having any radio capable of receiving police radio transmissions.
A law was passed by the governing agency (The Federal Communications Commission) giving licensed amateur radio operators exemption from the law. PR Docket 91-36
http://qsl.net/w5htw/FCC_PAGE/fcc_page.html
This law did not give licensed amateurs the right to buy a scanner for their vehicles or to listen to police calls in states that prohibited it . But it did give them a legal right to have radios in their vehicles that were capable 'out of the box' of receiving police radio transmissions.
After the federal law was passed a number of states who had these 'scanner laws' on the books added the licensed amateur radio operator exemption to the scanner laws.
Even though radios and firearms are two very different subjects. There are similarities here.
Federal Government
Federal Agency
License Holders
Items affected by State Laws
Items that can be carried on a person or in a vehicle.
Exemption from State Law by the Federal Government"
________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments, Concerns ?