Joe Williams
Shooter
- Jun 26, 2008
- 10,431
- 38
snip
As far a leaving the Feds out.....well you brought them in when you bought from a dealer.
But we don't have to buy from a dealer, and very often don't.
snip
As far a leaving the Feds out.....well you brought them in when you bought from a dealer.
The time is going to come around when they actually have use it to defend theirself and they are going to miss because they have NO training what so ever and they're going to hit an innocent bystandard
Let's leave the police out of this. We are talking about LTCH from which LEOs are exempt.
Law, there is a far easier regime, simply enforce the licenses of all states via full faith and credit clause. We could tie it to federal funding (highway money) of some type to ensure compliance in Illinois or New Jersey.
You people who think training should required are trampling over our 2A rights.
There are no issues with licenced IN gun toters that requires attention. Blood is not running in the streets as people get into gunfights over minor arguments. We are a responsible people. We do not neet the state qualifying us to be able to perform our god given right of self defense.
Stop trying to "fix" a problem THAT DOES NOT EXIST.
Edit: When I say "You people" I am referring to the people who voted Yes in the poll but apparently didn't bother to type out a rationale in this thread. They remain annonymous.
How many yes voters (in the poll above) have a Utah/Florida permit?
How long has the Utah/Florida permit been around and how many times has someone or some group tried to use the "required training" to outlaw carrying altogether?
Ok, well I know this is going to start a bunch of **** but here goes.
We need a Federal Issued license that ALL states MUST honor. To obtain this Federal license you would be bound to regualtions as Police officers are. Any guns you want to carry, you MUST qualify with. If you can't hit the target, you can't carry it for personal defence (Hunting, target shooting and all that stuff would still be ok). The guns you qualify with would be listed on the back of the license. I'm not saying give "Big Brother" a list of every gun we own, not by any means. I know a bunch of people don't want the goverment to know about what and all the guns we own but you and I both know they have a very good idea what we have. The fact that you ever applyed for a hunting license is tip #1 there may be a gun in your home. Tip #2, you applied for a carry permit. And theres tip #3, remember the paperwork you filled out so you could take your new gun home from the dealer? Well a copy of that goes to the ATF, a Federal Goverment Agencey. If for some reason the ATF didn't get that paperwork, there's the phone call to N.C.I.C. the dealer made where he gave all your info to them so you may actually take your new gun home. All that is kept on file at yet, Another Goverment Agency.
Here's the main reason I think you must qualify with your weapon before you can carry it for person protection. There's someone out there (and probably one in every town) thats carrying the bigest, most powerful handgun they could get ahold of because of some "Shoot 'em up" movie or movies they watch all the time and the think guns are "cool" and haven't really earned a respect for them yet. The time is going to come around when they actually have use it to defend theirself and they are going to miss because they have NO training what so ever and they're going to hit an innocent bystandard.
As far a leaving the Feds out.....well you brought them in when you bought from a dealer.
Let's say Indiana did away with the LTCH. Would anyone get behind requiring someone who purchases a handgun being required to take a safety class? Again...if the LTCH requirement was lifted.
Maybe I need to outline this a little better
Now, if ISP wants to have flyers with LOCAL individuals or companies offering NRA (or GOA or whatever) approved training and wants to put a flyer in each LTCH envelope with the recommendation that the newly licensed individual seek out training, then I'll buy the first box of paper used to print them.
Maybe I need to outline this a little better
Keep our state issued License. This Federal License would be for people like myself that travel out of state on a regular basis and we wouldn't have to worry about which state honors what.
snip
So instead of the most commonly used armed felon/officer safety argument, you've chosen the public safety/incompetent handler argument. The many variations of these are the main reasons we're where we are right now with the licensing and registration schemes. Take away the rights of the many, because of the actions of the few. No, worse - take away the rights of the many because of the potential actions of the few. This is what you're advocating, because "there's someone out there who might..."
The people shall have a right to bear arms. You either believe in it - or you don't.
Basically in that statement I was singling out people like my brother-in-law. We live in a town with a population of about 6,000. Two businesses were robbed here recently and the first thing he does is runs out and buy the Glock 20 thats been converted to the GI 50 round. He have never owned or fired a handgun before. His hands shake all the time from all the energy drink and other stuff takes on a daily basis. He's owned his new Glock for about 5 months now and he has NOT fired one round through it. He carries it around all the time acting like Billy bad a$$ say first chance he gets he going to blow someone's head off. I like said, there at least one in every town.
Now tell me MCT, do you want a guy like this walking around out in public with YOUR family around. I don't. I don't even allow my kids anywhere near him anymore.
I agree with you 100% but you know states like Ohio are going to fight it. Actually until a few years ago, Ohio only let Police and Military carry waepons. Thats how anti 2nd amendment they are.Ahhh. You are talking about an optional licence.
I still think the better course is to require states to honor the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
But.... why should we take your word he's unfit to carry a gun, vs his word that you are not fit to carry a gun?
Do you really think we should dole out Constitutional rights on the basis of whether or not people like you?
Basically in that statement I was singling out people like my brother-in-law.
Maybe it could be your civic duty to take this man shooting and teach him about guns.
Hes gotta want to practice first. You can learn if you don't practiceMaybe it could be your civic duty to take this man shooting and teach him about guns.