How about “carry” is allowed anywhere the government requires someone to be. Alternatives to allowing carry would include a secure perimeter w/ metal detectors (such as a courthouse), or the presence of armed security.
Realty proprietors already have the right to restrict entry to anyone they choose, so that could include anyone in possession of a firearm.
I think it's pretty clear in the constitution that the intention was for states to have a lot of autonomy and differing laws. In general I think this is a good thing as it allows different "cultures" to coexist in the US.
That said there are a number of provisions that basically make sure one's states laws aren't interfering with another's, (broad brush here)
Therefore I think we need to decouple certain types of laws in order to allow for regional differences.
Open carry/concealed carry I think that should be up to the states, even to the extent that it's up to the state to allow differing rules in various jurisdictions. If Boulder CO doesn't want open carry and the state of CO thinks that's ok, that's fine in my book... same with the opposite.
I do think national rules outlined by
@VikingsGuy make a lot of sense.
While I like these provisions, I think these are probably non-starters...
- Federal pre-emption for all licensing, permitting, safety and other regulation of firearms
- No state/local/federal firearm registration database
- A national carry permit (not just concealed) - basic training class + simple range test + background check - renewed every 10 years - this would be offered in addition to whatever state permits are provided
Why?
Well Massachusetts still isn't a member of the Interstate Wildlife compact, and MA, CA, NY, etc all have onerous gun permit rules they refuse to consider reciprocity.
Some states just hate playing ball even if it's a good idea.
