Lowering the requirements, IMO, would indeed allow a less desireable segment of socity into the CHL number. Like a good brisket, Texas' proceedure is Just Right. Not too invasive...and not that easy to obtain.
*sigh*
Okay, let me put this as kindly as I possibly can: what you just said was very selfish and elitist.
Silly, too, because as has already been pointed out,
criminals don't bother with the law.
"Not too invasive" means, "it doesn't affect
me." But it does affect other people, people you referred to as "a less desireable segment of society." Someone more blunt would have called them "poor people" -- folks who can't
afford to jump through expensive and utterly unnecessary hoops in order to exercise a basic human right.
Folks like my next door neighbors, good, hard-working folks who live in a very poor rural community and who are raising a passel of kids on hand-me-downs and boiled dishrag soup. I was talking to the mom awhile back, and the subject of guns came up. I told her about the free classes at the shooting range up the hill, and she was absolutely thrilled to hear about 'em. Then she asked, "How hard is it to get a carry permit here?"
In WA, it's not hard at all. You go in, let 'em take your paw prints, give 'em a half-century note, and wait a few weeks. No hassle, no required classes. But there is that fifty dollars' tax to be paid.
I told her that. She sighed and said, "Well, I have to buy groceries this pay cycle because the garden's not producing enough yet. Maybe I can save up for it, and get it a couple months from now."
But she knew -- and I know from observation -- that they'll have some minor emergency, like a broken car or a kid who needs a trip to the doctor, and she won't be able to pay the government for the enormous
privilege of carrying her personal property with her when she leaves the house.
The pathetic thing is, if they were freeloaders on the system, they'd be getting food stamps and free medical, and would probably have the spare cash to pay the tax on protecting themselves. They aren't, so they don't. That "not too invasive" tax keeps them from being able to exercise a basic human right.
And well meaning folks like you think this is a good thing.
pax
Every radish I ever pulled up seemed to have a mortgage attached to it. -- Ed Wynn
The non-law abiding would join in a wave to comply with the law? Like they do with drugs? Or raping people and robbing convenience stores? Laws only affect the law abiding. The law abiding should be left alone to do whatever they want to do.