The tragic hypocrisy of "shall issue".
Walmart, the largest gun seller in the US will not sell a gun to anyone that can't pass the two minute NICS check fist time around. Walmart does not recognize the three day 'proceed' provision of the Brady background check law. The truth is that no gun dealer is required to sell a gun to anyone who passes the NICS background check. A dealer can refuse to sell for any reason or no reason at all.
BUT a local law enforcement officer MUST issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who passes the NICS check regardless of what that LEO knows about the applicant. A history public intoxication is not a disqualifier although it indicates a lack of personal responsibility, impulse control and is closely linked to gun violence. So even though the LEO has arrested the applicant repeatedly for PI the license still MUST be issued.
Such is the legacy of 'shall issue' laws pushed by the NRA and authored by ALEC.
= new reply since forum marked as read
While I don't oppose "shall issue" systems (I suspect you're unsurprised by that... 
), I'd like to see the requirements for the permit significantly tightened. Nope, I'm not a "constitutional carry" advocate.* I'd like to see some additional criteria added to the list of things that would disqualify an applicant: any kind of violent crime (even misdemeanors), DUI/PI (although I would be receptive to exemptions granted on completion of a certified substance abuse program), any issuance of a restraining order for domestic violence (many states already do this), being under treatment for certain mental health conditions, and more.
I'd like to see a requirement for a genuine demonstration of competency; some states have NO such requirement, others have standards that don't go much beyond a "warm body" test. Basically, I'd like to see an indication that the applicant is someone who spends some real time at the range on a regular basis...the field test shouldn't be easy in terms of marksmanship, and should have a "zero tolerance" policy in terms of any sort of unsafe gun handling. Someone who goes shooting once a year isn't someone I think should be regularly carrying in public. Of course, I also think a driver's license should be a lot harder to get, so maybe it's just me. 
Choosing to arm one's self is a matter that should be treated as one of life and death...because that's precisely what it is. A cavalier approach is completely unacceptable.
*Yes, I understand that no-permit CCW has always worked just fine in Vermont...but Vermont is hardly a typical US state in so very many aspects.
