Why not have both?
I really fail to grasp why not just combine the two bills, Kang and Kodos style.
"Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others."
No permit required to carry in state for anyone; shall-issue permit available for those who might like to leave the state and have reciprocity, without having to send their money and personal info to Utah or Florida.
Has no one suggested actual "Alaska/AZ/WY/MT Carry" to the legislators involved?
They are aware of the weaknesses of "Vermont Carry" reciprocity-wise right?
I believe they are aware of the weaknesses of a VT-only system, and that the Constitutional Carry version of the bill does not have it for one of two reasons.
1. They intend to merge the bills as a "compromise" and indeed get AK/AZ carry with optional permits for reciprocity at some point in the legislative/committee process.
2. The Constitutional Carry bill is just a decoy to freak out the antis, draw their fire, and allow the shall-issue bill to sail through unmolested, and was always intended so from the beginning.
The "ideal" situation would be a three-tier system.
1. Constitutional Carry VT/AK/AZ style.
2. Optional shall-issue permits for reciprocity.
3. Optional shall-issue permits with a training endorsement added for enhanced reciprocity.
No crazy alcohol/bar/restaurant rules other than no drinking yourself, or even better, "not intoxicated".
Parking lot storage for posted employers.
University/campus carry.
Mandate Lockers for prohibited buildings like Police stations, court houses etc.
Texas-style .30-06 signage rules (i.e. big, ugly, specific wording, every entrance) and unlike TX the signs only have trespass authority. i.e. they have to spot you, ask you to leave, and then you have to further be a complete idiot and refuse. After that, it's misdemeanor trespass only.
