I agree that the complacency and acceptance of the idea of the validity of the permit process is hard to reverse once initiated. Here in Missouri, when CCW was first proposed in 2003 and finalized in 2004, the was a general idea of "Let's just compromise in order to get CCW, and then once we get it, we can make it better for gun owners once those fighting so hard against it see how their fears are unfounded.". Guess what? Other than a few minor alterations such as expiration length increasing from three to five years, the law hasn't changed a bit. (Except for the surprising nullification of sobriety requirement two years ago. You can now be ****faced drunk and remain lawfully armed. How this got past the gubnur's veto pen, you've got me, but I'm not going to complain.)
Illinois' recent passage of CCW is a prime example. For so long, Chicago was the monkey wrench in the cogs holding up firearm carry in the state. Downstate legislators offered CCW bills almost every year only to have them pretty much torn to shreds and thrown contemptuously back in their faces. When the 7th circuit overturned ALL CARRY RESTRICTIONS and gave a 180 day stay on this decision so Illinois could draft permit legislation, DOWNSTATERS HAD CHICAGO POLITICIANS BY THE BALLS! All they had to do was name their tune and let Chicago sweat the impending cloud of Constitutional Carry hanging over their heads to give them ANYTHING THEY WANTED! What happened? Chicago politicians played the morons like harps and simply acted like nothing was going to change. Downstate politicians jumped into the noose they should have been tying for Chicago, panicked, and agreed to almost every demand as a requirement out of fear of the looming Constitutional Carry they could have used as a lever for their side of the argument. They HAD to have a permit! They had been seeking it for so long, the thought of NOT getting permit requirements passed in that 180 days made them sell almost everything they wanted dirt cheap. It's a freaking MIRACLE they hung on to "shall issue". (What? Crystal goblets and gold dinnerware? Not for Illinois! They insist on pewter mugs and wooden bowls!)
As for Peruta, the more I think about it, the more I wonder. The 9th circuit decision makes "good cause" a thing of the past. I have been assuming that this meant CA will now be "shall issue". Can someone clarify this? By removing the "good cause" requirement does that effectively make CA "shall issue", or is it still "may issue" but only with the good cause requirement removed? What would be the difference?
The bottom line I was meandering toward in attempting to illustrate my "walking west" scenario is....if the entire country becomes "shall issue", why would reciprocity still be an issue? Why should I be arrested for carrying in California when the entire country is shall issue? What sense would it make? California doesn't recognize my permit? O.K. I just moved to California. Now they have to issue me one. What? [insert state] doesn't recognize California's permit? O.K. I'll just move there. Now they have to issue me one.
What's the point of NOT recognizing out of state permits when people on both sides of the line "shall be issued" one?
As a metaphor (albeit, a bad one) It's like drawing a line in the sand and saying, "Everyone on this side of the line shall be issued a permit to wear a blue hat. Everyone on that side of the line shall also be issued a permit to wear a blue hat. You can cross the line, at will. You just can't cross the line while wearing a blue hat.because that would be illegal, even though blue hat permits shall be issued to you regardless of which side of the line you choose to be on.
My argument is, once "shall issue" becomes the norm nationwide, it will be easier to knock the bricks out of reciprocity issues next as the ignorance of it will be easier to illustrate.
THEN, we can begin chipping at the entire idea of a permit system in the first place.
However, I do see the point you raised. Once "compromise" of a permit is formed, I've rarely seen that "compromise" reversed. However, since almost every state has a permit system in place, this is pretty much the task ahead of us. I don't think the eventual disintegration of "permits" is necessarily an impossible task. Five years ago, Vermont was the only state I was aware of with Constitutional Carry. Today there are several, and it appears more may be along soon.
So I think it is a good idea to ponder what steps to take next. Let's start chipping at the next ignorant brick in the wall anti-rights gun grabbers are trying to build around our freedoms.
