Just my opinion, but, I think it's a terrible idea, to many states that have different training stipulations, and regulations on guns that can be carried.
How so? If a permit is valid, it should be recognized regardless of what state issued it, regardless of what states feel is appropriate. We already know all those different training stipulations don't amount to jack, they're just there to harass people.
Nobody's going to agree and if they do, the people that already have a concealed carry permit are going to have a bunch of different regs and background checks thrown at them.
How so?
Once again, just my opinion, it's a States Rights issue not a federal government issue.
Good for a few, like California, but bad for a lot more, like Indiana, or all the states without any training stipulations.
Owning and carrying a gun is a constitutional right, meaning states don't have business looking into how to restrict the legal right to whatever degree they can get away with. McDonald already determined the right applies to the states, meaning they have little legal choice but to recognize it.
As for topic of thread, if you're not going to carry it or conceal it, go with what you want, otherwise you have to think about availability of holsters and magazines and the like.
And the like sometimes involves what a friend or relative is carrying. Parts commonality and magazine compatibility shouldn't be overlooked. It's one reason police precincts and the military generally issues the same model handgun uniformly through the unit.
Lot of guns out there, I use a Glock because of the amount of companies and departments that issue them and ease of getting accessories, like holsters and magazines.
Especially the magazines. I've been checking the prices for pistols that are competitors to Glock, and they're all considerably more expensive, without offering any significant advantages in either quality or capacity.