Would you support Required Testing?

[G McBride]

If Indiana had a training course required to get your LCH, would other states recognize our permit, that do not today

Would you be in favor of taking a course to get other states to recognize our Indiana license even though you may hold a lifetime license now?

Wouldn't it be better than taking a course to hold another states permit?

 

[Dogman]

 

[dburkhead]

If it were similar to Alaska's option: You don't need a license/permit to carry in Alaska, but they offer one so that you can have reciprocity with other states.

Permitting one to be able to take a course and get a certification to that effect on one's license and, thereby increase reciprocity options is one thing. But requiring such a course to get the license in the first place (when you shouldn't need the license anyway)? A step back is still a step back no matter how you justify it.

 

[JcJ]

FL-UT, don't mess with a good thing..

 

[AFA1CY]

NO!

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free speech.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free religion.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to a free press.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to vote.

Why should I need a test to exercise my right to keep and bear arms?

 

[USMC_0311]

Only if they lightend up on the no gun zones. Like schools, parks, goverment buildings. I think if they go to through the trouble to background check, testing, classes or whatever. Then we should be trusted anywhere. (airports and court rooms only exceptions)

But I think the whole idea of a license is complete bull anyway and so does the 2nd Admendment

I think if they allow the no gun zones then the zones should be required to provide security and checkpoints also private or public. just my

 

[NateIU10]

Unequivocally, no. Why should our state (who is "friendly" but not even close to perfect) implement more restrictions on a god-given right? Sorry, I don't support appeasement.

 

[G McBride]

Maybe we need a National test that if you are certified by this test, your states license would be honored by every state that allows carrying. They could just issue a card that says you took the training.

I agree that we should not take a step backward but we need to have more states honor our LTCH. Any suggestions to make that happen. I know there are work arounds but wouldn't life be easier if Handgun permits and licenses worked like our drivers licenses.

 

[NateIU10]

Maybe we need a National test that if you are certified by this test, your states license would be honored by every state that allows carrying. They could just issue a card that says you took the training.

I agree that we should not take a step backward but we need to have more states honor our LTCH. Any suggestions to make that happen. I know there are work arounds but wouldn't life be easier if Handgun permits and licenses worked like our drivers licenses.

Again, I think you're heart's in the right place, but these plans don't seem so hot to me. I don't want a national ID card, so I most certainly don't want a National Firearms safety test. Legislative action is a place to start. Giving LTCHs and CCWs full faith and credit across the nation would also be a way to go. But again, no test. Not state, not national. God gave us the right to protect ourselves, so man has no right to restrict it.

Being "easier" is not what's always what's best also. I am not willing to further restrict my rights in order to gain some reciprocity.

 

[possum_128]

In a word..............NO!!!!!! Oh and I agree with AFA1CY 100%. Could not have said it better.

 

[melensdad]

NO!

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free speech.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free religion.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to a free press.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to vote.

Why should I need a test to exercise my right to keep and bear arms?

ditto

 

[bwframe]

 

[Scutter01]

Only if they lightend up on the no gun zones. Like schools, parks, goverment buildings. I think if they go to through the trouble to background check, testing, classes or whatever. Then we should be trusted anywhere. (airports and court rooms only exceptions)

Not to thread-jack, but why these exceptions? If you're trusted everywhere else, why would a court room suddenly be a problem?

 

[USMC_0311]

I don't know or have an opinion yet, but wouldn't most of you agree that there are some people that just shouldn't have a gun? And if so how do we enforce that? Not trying to hijack but this seems it needs answered before we just drop or add all cary laws?

 

[USMC_0311]

Not to thread-jack, but why these exceptions? If you're trusted everywhere else, why would a court room suddenly be a problem?

My thinking is some times in court things can get emotional (family court) tempory insanety is one way to put it.

As far as airports well you got the whole terrorist thing.

Both these places theoratically can be secured to the point at least there is armed and active security. I am not totally decided either would like hear more from both sides.

 

[munky_3434]

now don't go bashing me right away, i'm just stepping outside looking in. buttttt

i don't know, after the thread from last week where the dumb@$$ got arrested in walmart i could see some merit. although they could just have a procreation competency test and save several headaches from the get go. lets be honest, while it is a right.........some people's right scare's me.

 

[melensdad]

now don't go bashing me right away, i'm just stepping outside looking in. buttttt

i don't know, after the thread from last week where the dumb@$$ got arrested in walmart i could see some merit. although they could just have a procreation competency test and save several headaches from the get go. lets be honest, while it is a right.........some people's right scare's me.

My sister in law has a Florida license, a Utah license and a New Mexico license (but not an Indiana license) and she and I were talking about what she had to do to attain her licenses, basically it was worthless. She had to hit a target and she had to take a basic safety class.

There was essentially no real training, there was essentially no real legal training, there was essentially only the required training needed to pass the tests. Nothing more. That said the words out of her mouth were "it was worthless" So if we have to have a 'worthless' training then can you actually suggest that the idiot at Wal Mart would not have passed, if an idiot can pass the test, and believe me they can, then they are still idiots and they will still get arrested in Wal Mart.



My sister-in-law is 'qualified' to carry a gun in more states than I am but she barely knows how to shoot a gun. She does not even know how to operate all the features on her own gun. Still, she is 'trained' in the eyes of the law. She is more qualified than I am because she's passed 'official' tests that I have not passed. Yup, testing works. NOT.

 

[munky_3434]

true......good call

 

[Coach]

Is there more responsibility tied to the right to bear arms than is tied to:

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Press

The Right to Vote

Freedom of Religion

If the right to bear arms is God given or inalienable how did we in this country get to this position where it is so restricted?

 

[munky_3434]

Is there more responsibility tied to the right to bear arms than is tied to

yes, stupid people with the other rights can do little harm.


keep in mind, i'm not pro gun control, i am however pro idiot control.