These "state constitutional carry" bills are not normally favored by local law enforcement and so the governors can veto them even if they pass.
As long as you live in a "shall issue" state, you really don't need "state constitutional carry" and the disadvantage is there is no vetting of persons carrying concealed legally.
State constitutional carry fans get really aggravated at the mention of the issue of the pro's and con's. They also misconstrue the meaning of "bear arms" in the Federal 2nd Amendment as well. Scalia defines this as meaning "bring your gun" not "wear your gun in public".
It all gets really hot and bothered fast.
Personally I am in favor of shall-issue and in favor of universal state reciprocity. But I am not in favor of state constitutional carry.
And that's the difference between the pro-gun forums and the Brady Campaign and Mom's Demand Actions forums. You can come here and express your desire for gun control and your disregard for the Constitution of the United States and we will allow your post to stay, we will allow you to remain a member of the forum, and we will debate your ideas. But what happens when a pro-gun person posts on the Brady Bunch website or the Moms not getting enough action websites about the utter nonsense of things like "no vetting of persons carrying concealed legally" - their posts get removed and the person gets banned. Why? Because their views, like yours, are emotionally based and have no factual basis in the real world.
I'll give you an example. Your statement "the disadvantage is there is no vetting of persons carrying concealed legally." Let's compare Vermont and California. A convicted felon is carrying a concealed firearm. That is a crime in both Vermont and California. The convicted felon walks into a convenience store in Vermont or California, points the gun to the clerks head and robs them. That is a crime in both Vermont and California. So exactly what has this "vetting of persons carrying concealed legally" accomplished to reduce crime? Absolutely 100% NOTHING! All your "shall issue" permit system does it make it harder and more expensive for the person who desires to follow the law to do so. It has no effect on the person who is going to violate the law anyway.
Let's take another example. Cop stops Joe Smith for speeding. He asks Joe Smith if he has any weapons. Joe Smith says yes, there is a pistol in the glove box. Again, let's go to Vermont or to Washington where a CPL is required to carry a loaded handgun in a vehicle. If Joe Smith is prohibited from possessing a firearm in Vermont or Washington then it is illegal in both states for him to have the gun in the vehicle. The CPL requirement does not change that in any way. If Joe Smith is not prohibited from possessing a firearm now what changes in Washington because of the CPL requirement? Only one thing changes. Joe Smith must go and have his fingerprints taken, pay the state a fee for a background check, receive a permission slip from the state and carry that permission slip with him whenever he has the gun in the car. That is all that has changed. Absolutely NOTHING ELSE has changed other than making Joe Smith jump through the hoops and pay the state a tax in order to legally exercise his right to bear arms which is supposed to be protected by the US Constitution! Does the CPL requirement do anything to reduce crime? NO, absolutely not.
Why stop with the 2nd Amendment. Why don't we have 4th Amendment permits? Imaging how much easier that would make a cop's job and how much safer society would be? Here's how it would work. You have to do the same thing to get a 4th Amendment permit as you do a concealed carry license. Have fingerprints done every 1 to 5 years. Pay the state for a background check. You get your 4th Amendment permit. Cop stops you for speeding. He asks to see your 4th Amendment permit. You don't have it. So without it the government has now granted the authority to the cop to pull you out of your car, handcuff you, sit you down on the ground and search through every crevice of your vehicle looking for anything illegal. I mean why should you have any 4th Amendment rights without being vetted by the government first? Would you be in favor of that? Why not?
I would love to hear an intelligent reply but I won't hold my breath.
