CoalTrain49
Member
I oppose it.
I think I see a lot of dead livestock resulting from negligent discharges.
Kansas moves toward eliminating conceal carry licensening
- Thread starter BSA1
- Start date
- Status
I oppose it.
I think I see a lot of dead livestock resulting from negligent discharges.
Onward Allusion
Member
What's funny is that firearms instructors actually think that a class will fix stupid. One single class? Say 4 hours? 8 hours? How about 16 hours like Illinois?
You can't fix stupid folks. If a person isn't barred from owning a gun, there's no reason why they should be barred from carrying one to protect themselves.
You can't fix stupid folks. If a person isn't barred from owning a gun, there's no reason why they should be barred from carrying one to protect themselves.
Last edited:
You think the 8 hour class with 1-2 Hours on a range is going to change how they handle a gun within a month? B.S. Sir. they will forget about every safe thing you taught them by the time they get the license if they are just not interested in shooting. But most of them would not carry the gun either way, its just a fad right now to have a CC permit. I know lots of people that take it and never carry a gun. I have helped teach a few classes as a range helper and i know lots of those people are flat out dangerous with a gun, but I sure as hell didn't teach them or have enough time to teach them what they need to know to use a gun correctly. So for those of use that do carry and know how to use it we shouldn't have to pay an arm and leg to carry.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Smart gun owners not smart guns....
I agree with some of the points made in the last few posts but I think gun shops, 2A supporters and cadre should encourage gun classes and training not just gun safety or security.
Teaching proper methods and to guide new shooters in basic skills would go a long way.
My county sheriff is on a new tear to stop the major problem of stolen guns & guns used in violent crimes by felons. He's got a good plan but some people just won't listen,
.
Id add that a lot of the "no laws" mindset comes down to $$$.
If public agencies don't have laws or statues to enforce or regulate then that's $ the state or local agencies can't collect. No laws/rules also means fewer state employees or office workers.
MS has a fairly lax security industry policy. There are no long classes, no hoops or red tape. You go to the state office, pay one fee, fill out a form then wait for your MS license(that's valid for about 5 years). That's a good way to keep the costs down.
I agree with some of the points made in the last few posts but I think gun shops, 2A supporters and cadre should encourage gun classes and training not just gun safety or security.
Teaching proper methods and to guide new shooters in basic skills would go a long way.
My county sheriff is on a new tear to stop the major problem of stolen guns & guns used in violent crimes by felons. He's got a good plan but some people just won't listen,
.Id add that a lot of the "no laws" mindset comes down to $$$.
If public agencies don't have laws or statues to enforce or regulate then that's $ the state or local agencies can't collect. No laws/rules also means fewer state employees or office workers.
MS has a fairly lax security industry policy. There are no long classes, no hoops or red tape. You go to the state office, pay one fee, fill out a form then wait for your MS license(that's valid for about 5 years). That's a good way to keep the costs down.
CoalTrain49
Member
That's how I see it.
If the state is going to require a test and training they should get geared up to provide that. It should include something that looks like a 4 hour college credit class using a proper facility like a police range and state certified instructors. That could be any instructor qualified to train LEO's.
The way it's set up now everyone and his brother is cashing in on the CC boom and it's mostly a sham.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/concealed-carry-permit-guns-utah
I personally don't have anything against training and licensing. I hold a professional license and I paid plenty for it in time and money. But a CC permit is nothing more than a cash cow for so called trainers and instructors in most states.
Sorry if I stepped on any toes but that's how I feel about it.
Last edited:
ClickClickD'oh
Member
BigBore45 said:
Lol, give me a month to work with a student and I dang'd well will change how they handle the firearm. But, that's not what we are talking about is it?
No I don't think any basic CHL class is going to change how people handle their firearms, and you won't find anywhere I suggested such. I suggest you read what I wrote and you quoted:
"And before someone chimes in about how it's my job as an instructor to blah blah blah.. Our states course is by law not a skills development course"
And:
"I completely support at least a minimal skills demonstration required for carry in public."
I have no illusion that a basic CHL course will do anything to improve fireams skills, mostly because, at least where I teach, it's against the law to use the CHL class to do so. The class is a lecture on the law and non violent dispute resolution and 50 rounds down range. And I'm fine with that. I don't think it's the states responsibility to train people in the finer points of using a firearm, only to make sure they are moderately safe in doing so in public. And if you can't pass the scoffingly easy range practical that is required, you have no business carrying a gun in public. Go back, practice some more and come back and get your license later.
The vast majority of people I see that fail the CHL class do so because of the range practical (You have to be special to fail an open book test). Almost always it is because they've never, ever, fired a gun before and have decided it would be a nifty idea to carry one in public with that level of skill
BigBore45 said:
Keep building that strawman.
BigBore45 said:
I'm not going to disagree with you.
Again, if you had read what I wrote and what you quoted again:
"...there's no reason why a handgun license should cost more than a drivers license..."
It seems to me that the discussions around constitutional carry often cant's seem to distinguish anything in between overly expensive, complicated and restrictive licensing schemes and nothing at all. And if you aren't for nothing at all, you must be in favor of overly expensive, complicated and restrictive licensing measures.
CoalTrain49 said:
Okay then.
You've figured me out. It's all about the benjamins and my fat wad, yo.
Oh wait, no. CHL classes for me are often just break even or a cash loss. I run them only because they are a good lead in to more advanced and more profitable courses that do actually teach skills development.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
When I taught the carry course in Oklahoma the instructors were limited by law how much they could charge for the course. From my experience most of the courses offered here in Kansas are around 75-100 dollars per person. The instructor that I taught with had set up a range, built a class room and also furnished the course materials and work book. Factor in the outside range time, often in the cold and snow, and it was/is not exactly easy money.
The state milks the "cash cow" with their licensing fees...
Oh, and how many drivers go back for more Driver's Ed after they get a license..?
The state milks the "cash cow" with their licensing fees...
Oh, and how many drivers go back for more Driver's Ed after they get a license..?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
One thing that our friends like ClickClickD'oh and KSCCHTrainer CANNOT do is show any correlation between higher rates of accident or lawlessness among lawful gun carriers in states with no training requirements and those with heavy training requirements. None exists.
So while it sure sounds like truth to say required training makes people safer, there isn't any proof that this is true in a track-able, verifiable way.
Such assertions are known as "TRUTHY." That is to say, probably true because it is common perception that it probably is true and you can't prove a negative, so might as well assume it is true -- without a shred of evidence to support it.
So maybe the problem, as CllickClickD'oh has suggested, is that the training isn't good enough, long enough ("give me a month to work with a student and I dang'd well will change how they handle the firearm") or teaching the right things. So maybe for "truthy" to become "true" we just need to make the mandatory training much longer and more thorough. Like maybe how your highschool driver's ed course took about a semester of regular attendance... Sounds good, eh?
So while we know and trust and believe that our pals here don't have a financial dog in the fight, they must forgive us for forgetting that occasionally when OTHER trainers just like them (but not them, obviously) would stand to gain cash money when states require training, or lose it when they decide there isn't enough evidence of social benefit to warrant continuing their program.
...
Or maybe they'll just finally unearth that long-sought evidence of social benefit to required training and the rest of us will bow to their wisdom. Good luck, boys!
"Sequi pecuniam."
So while it sure sounds like truth to say required training makes people safer, there isn't any proof that this is true in a track-able, verifiable way.
Such assertions are known as "TRUTHY." That is to say, probably true because it is common perception that it probably is true and you can't prove a negative, so might as well assume it is true -- without a shred of evidence to support it.
So maybe the problem, as CllickClickD'oh has suggested, is that the training isn't good enough, long enough ("give me a month to work with a student and I dang'd well will change how they handle the firearm") or teaching the right things. So maybe for "truthy" to become "true" we just need to make the mandatory training much longer and more thorough. Like maybe how your highschool driver's ed course took about a semester of regular attendance... Sounds good, eh?
So while we know and trust and believe that our pals here don't have a financial dog in the fight, they must forgive us for forgetting that occasionally when OTHER trainers just like them (but not them, obviously) would stand to gain cash money when states require training, or lose it when they decide there isn't enough evidence of social benefit to warrant continuing their program.
...
Or maybe they'll just finally unearth that long-sought evidence of social benefit to required training and the rest of us will bow to their wisdom. Good luck, boys!
"Sequi pecuniam."
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Sam1911 said:
Nice strawman.
Sam1911 said:
Never said any such thing.
Sam1911 said:
Never said that either.
Sam1911 said:
Another fine strawman on your part.
What I did say is: "I completely support at least a minimal skills demonstration required for carry in public." Any notion that I support anything else is a fabrication not supported by any statement I've ever made.
In fact, you'll note I predicted this very sort of silly character assassination posting back in post #31:
ClickClickD'oh said:
And there we are. My psychic powers at work. An assertion that it's a good idea on the states part to make someone put a box of ammunition into a target at a laughably short distance has been conflated into "So maybe for "truthy" to become "true" we just need to make the mandatory training much longer and more thorough. Like maybe how your highschool driver's ed course took about a semester of regular attendance... Sounds good, eh?" And by a moderator no less. Good show Highroad, good show.
OP
OP
BSA1
member
In addition to Sam1911's comments I will go back to the key point I have made many times;
Conceal Carry licensing fees and courses discriminate against the four groups of people that are most at risk to being a victim of violent crime; the poor, the elderly, single mothers and the disabled.
In Kansas the application fee is $132.50. As previously commented the course fee is between $75.00 to $100.00. So the applicant is out over $200.00 cash money before they can get the permit. However the applicant must provide their own transportation, time off work (the course is 8 hours), child care if a parent along with a handgun and ammunition.
All of this is on top of buying a handgun, ammo and a holster. A good quality handgun is probably going to cost $300.00 +. More for a top quality gun like the Ruger. Since a gun is only as good as the ammo you feed it you add in cost of high quality self-defense ammo. Of course practice makes perfect add in cost of ammo for practice. Then there is the holster to carry the gun.
So we are easily at $600.00 so far. ClickClickD'oh wants to require arbitrary firearms training and skill level that meets his personal standard. He mentions a month of training in Post 31. This greatly narrows the number of poor, elderly, single parents and disabled from ever being able to get a conceal carry permit.
As Shanghai McCoy points out the Kansas Conceal Class is not for teaching firearm skills. It teaches the legal aspects of Kansas law.
Conceal Carry licensing fees and courses discriminate against the four groups of people that are most at risk to being a victim of violent crime; the poor, the elderly, single mothers and the disabled.
In Kansas the application fee is $132.50. As previously commented the course fee is between $75.00 to $100.00. So the applicant is out over $200.00 cash money before they can get the permit. However the applicant must provide their own transportation, time off work (the course is 8 hours), child care if a parent along with a handgun and ammunition.
All of this is on top of buying a handgun, ammo and a holster. A good quality handgun is probably going to cost $300.00 +. More for a top quality gun like the Ruger. Since a gun is only as good as the ammo you feed it you add in cost of high quality self-defense ammo. Of course practice makes perfect add in cost of ammo for practice. Then there is the holster to carry the gun.
So we are easily at $600.00 so far. ClickClickD'oh wants to require arbitrary firearms training and skill level that meets his personal standard. He mentions a month of training in Post 31. This greatly narrows the number of poor, elderly, single parents and disabled from ever being able to get a conceal carry permit.
As Shanghai McCoy points out the Kansas Conceal Class is not for teaching firearm skills. It teaches the legal aspects of Kansas law.
Last edited:
HorseSoldier
Member
I wonder what the cost to administer the state's concealed carry permit program is year to year?
My guess is that in Kansas, where the economy is going down the toilet at a pretty brisk pace, the ability to lay off some office staff will be a net gain unless a huge number of people are paying that $132.50 fee each year.
For those of you who may not remember, four years ago the antigun people were predicting a return to the OK Corral days with gun fights in the streets if we passed concealed carry. We did it anyway and since then there have been zero gun fights, no problems, nada, zip, a big zero. But, don't hold your breath waiting for one of them to say, 'maybe we were wrong.' Instead they are doubling down on this issue. It is looking good for we Kansans to have a Constitutional Carry soon.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
I still run hot and cold on live fire qualifications.
In the days of rural America, when a gun was a gun and not a "GUH-UHN"
and most people had used them one way or another, it was a different story.
Now, with the rampant paranoia over guns and some people physically recoiling from the mere sight of one, and without the usual informal training "at my (father's, uncle's, big brother's) knee," I feel some hands-on training is necessary.
So sometimes I like the idea, sometimes I don't.
In my first NRA course, the instructors clearly pointed out that it wasn't necessary under Colorado's laws, but at the end of the class they provided BB pistols just to observe how one handled a handgun.
They corrected some people in front of the whole class, which was very helpful. Your actual score on the targets didn't matter, as long as you didn't hit the wall of the Church's basement and kept the BBs on the paper.
So. I run hot and cold on the idea of live fire instruction in today's urbanized America.
I do feel it is necessary to address the laws of self-defense somehow, though, "Permit" or no "Permit."
Terry, 230RN
In the days of rural America, when a gun was a gun and not a "GUH-UHN"
and most people had used them one way or another, it was a different story. Now, with the rampant paranoia over guns and some people physically recoiling from the mere sight of one, and without the usual informal training "at my (father's, uncle's, big brother's) knee," I feel some hands-on training is necessary.
So sometimes I like the idea, sometimes I don't.
In my first NRA course, the instructors clearly pointed out that it wasn't necessary under Colorado's laws, but at the end of the class they provided BB pistols just to observe how one handled a handgun.
They corrected some people in front of the whole class, which was very helpful. Your actual score on the targets didn't matter, as long as you didn't hit the wall of the Church's basement and kept the BBs on the paper.
So. I run hot and cold on the idea of live fire instruction in today's urbanized America.
I do feel it is necessary to address the laws of self-defense somehow, though, "Permit" or no "Permit."
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
ClickClickD'oh
Member
BSA1 said:
Seriously, this is like a comedic farce now. Where did I say anything about required training?
Pretty much every single post I have made has said the exact opposite. See:
ME said:
ME said:
ME said:
So go ahead, tell me where I advocate mandatory training. Just once.
What, it's not there?
Go figure.
BSA1 said:
Pathetic. Seriously. Pathetic. That you are trying to insinuate that I was actually supporting requiring a month of training for CHL is disgusting.
I have seen THR at it's lowest before, but this is an all new level of dishonest BS.
What the hell is wrong with you guys. For shame.
Now, do you want to have an honest discussion about what is really being said, or are you going to continue with this inane and derptastic falsified character assassination that is truly not befitting the character of this forum?
Field Tester
Member
So what did you actually say then Click?
Seems like you admit the classes would have little affect on people, yet you want them to still be mandatory?
Yes, you obviously have no conflict of interest.
Sam's post perfectly summed up my thoughts, as he usually does.
Yes, it's everyone against you Click. Everyone is Strawmaning you. Everyone is misreading your posts and putting words in your mouth. It's everyone else that's wrong except you Click, isn't it?
See a common senario here Click?
Seems like you admit the classes would have little affect on people, yet you want them to still be mandatory?
Yes, you obviously have no conflict of interest.
Sam's post perfectly summed up my thoughts, as he usually does.
Yes, it's everyone against you Click. Everyone is Strawmaning you. Everyone is misreading your posts and putting words in your mouth. It's everyone else that's wrong except you Click, isn't it?
See a common senario here Click?
we are not amused
Member
Well, it was rather predictable.
There are plenty of little would be dictators around who just love to tell other people what they can do.
Lots of scare tactics and fear mongering, backed up by no facts.
Funny how the idea of a little freedom just scares the bejesus out of some people.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That isn't a strawman. That is the only compelling argument one could possibly make to impose a mandatory requirement on a basic civil right.
Public safety is sometimes allowed to rise to a level of social importance at which the Courts will accept limitations on rights.
So, if you aren't saying you're in favor of mandatory "skills tests" for public safety, then WHY are you for it? Obviously public safety is your only concern, here.
My point in that statement you called a "strawman" was to point out that there IS NO public safety benefit measure-able by any standard we can come up with. If advocates of mandatory "tests" or training are going to claim public safety as their excuse for demanding this restriction on a fundamental right, then they'd darned well better be able to show conclusively that the benefit is real and compelling.
So, you can call this assertion a strawman, or you can call it "Suzy." That doesn't make it either one.
Never said this was for public safety? C'mon, I'm not to believe you have some OTHER motive for wanting mandatory testing/courses that the safety of the public, am I?
I'd be shocked.Aside from the glaringly obvious fact that the quote you quoted contains within it a quote IN YOUR OWN WORDS, yeah, you did say the testing is generally extremely limited and "scoffingly(?)" easy. And that it wouldn't improve their handgun skills. If you still find it valuable...oh.
Well, ah...Let's just go back to my first point, which was the facts simply don't support your belief that it makes society safer.
Without the benefit of proof (or even a strong argument) that they help any state's population carry guns without endangering anyone.
YOU pointed out how lousy the training is, and how you use the required course to get students into your class so you can sell them more expensive training. So what are we all to conclude? That you think this pathetic "run a box of ammo through the gun" show proves anything or teaches anything or makes anyone safer?
In case I haven't pointed this out before, THERE IS NO CORRELATION BETWEEN STATES THAT REQUIRE NO TRAINING AND HIGHER LEVELS OF ACCIDENT OR LAWLESSNESS. That's pretty important.
Sorry, but "hey, it a good idea" isn't compelling enough allow a restriction on a fundamental right.
(Note: "Strawman" is not a catch-all rebuttal to everyone who disagrees with you.)
Last edited:
Red Wind
Member
Jlr2267
Member
Edit: moved
Last edited:
Flintknapper
Member
A "Truthy", never heard that before...but love it.
Got's to borrow that!
Got's to borrow that!
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Field Tester said:
If only there were some way we could know what I said... Maybe some form of preserved words that can be read again...
I'll have to look into this technology... In the mean time, you'll have to be satisfied with reading my posts.
Field Tester said:
Where have I said I want a training class to be mandatory?
Where?
Anywhere?
This is beyond insane now. You guys are flat out making things up and feeding on each others lies as if they were truth.
Field Tester said:
Okay, show me once where I have said that I support mandatory training classes.
Just once.
Now, be careful. It has to be somewhere where I actually said it.. not where one of you guys said I said it.
Good luck with that.
Sam1911 said:
Yes it is. Why should I even start to defend the rates of accidents between states with and without training requirements when I don't even in the least support training requirements?
That's a strawman. You are setting up and argument to tumple over when it has absolutely no bearing on anything I've suggested.
Sam1911 said:
Hang on there speedy. You tried to pull a fast one. You guys keep interchangeably using "training" and "basic skills test" and they aren't the same thing. Don't try to lump them together to misrepresent my position. I adamantly oppose mandatory training. I support a basic skills test.
If you want, we can get out the legal scholars and argue until we are blue in the face that requiring a basic skills test is/is not an undue burden on the exercise of a right, as long as it kept free from overly expensive, complicated and restrictive measures. That basic test as I've stated is putting a box of ammunition into a b-27 at three yards. You can tell me that there is no compelling public safety interest in being able to accomplish this task to be able to carry a gun in public, but try telling that to the judges who would eventually have to decide if that interest exists. Imagine yourself standing just the other side of the bench from the judges and saying, "you honors, I see no reason why a person who can't hit this big 'ol sheet of paper from this far away shouldn't be carrying a gun in public. I see no possible harm in that." Tell us, do the justices laugh in your imagination like they do in mine? Honestly, I imagine the judge from My Cousin Vinnie. You can offer up all the studies you want. If you don't hold up that B-27, opposing council will. And then it's just like trying to define obscenity. The court might not be able to exactly say what it is, but they'll know it when they see it.
Sam1911 said:
Don't misrepresent your own statement, it's beneath you. You said, "..while it sure sounds like truth to say required training makes people safer."
As I do not and have not advocated for required training, I have clearly not said as such. Any attempt on your part to represent otherwise is simply false.
Okay, two things here:Sam1911 said:
1: Do you honestly think I'm going to keep letting you misquote me and get away with it... then allow you to double down on it?
What you represented the quote as: "give me a month to work with a student and I dang'd well will change how they handle the firearm"
The actual quote: "Lol, give me a month to work with a student and I dang'd well will change how they handle the firearm. But, that's not what we are talking about is it?"
A little different when you include the full quote, isn't it? It should be absolutely obvious to anyone that when the second half is included I am not actually suggesting a month long CHL, or even any inclusion in the CHL at all. That you've doubled down on misrepresenting this is shameful.
2: Tell me honestly, do you not understand the difference between these two sentences:
1) The training (CHL) is not sufficient to develop skills with a firearm
-and-
2) I support mandatory training
Because honestly, I get the impression you don't.
Yes, the CHL training is inadequate to properly develop firearms skills (largely because it doesn't even address that topic at all). No, there shouldn't be mandatory skills training to get a CHL. It's really not that hard of a concept to acknowledge on one hand that what is required isn't enough for proficiency, then on the other hand also hold that it is none of the states business to be doing so in the first place.
Sam1911 said:
I thought I pointed out that where I teach there is no skills development training what so ever in the CHL class because it's omitted by law.
Please, represent my positions accurately.
Sam1911 said:
What, so now it's wrong to offer education to people who feel their skills are inadequate?
Really? Bad instructors, how dare you offer classes?
This is silly.
Is this what this has degraded into now?
Sam1911 said:
It does prove something. It proves that the person doing the shooting can hit the proverbial broad side of a barn.
Which should be the sum total, and end, of the governments interest in people carrying firearms in public.
Sam1911 said:
In case I haven't belabored this point enough, I don't care. I've never supported required training. I'm not about to start now. Good job tilting at that windmill. You really got it. I'm sure it won't be supporting required training ever again.. if it ever did. Poor windmill.
Why don't you go find someone that actually supports required training now and tell them why it's a flawed idea. Let me know, I'll come along and help out.
Field Tester
Member
Except where did I say training class Click? Now you're accusing me of the exact thing you are attempting to defend yourself against.
I said class, as in the only way you can qualify for a CCW as there is no other opportunity to show your skill without sitting through the class.
Fine, let's do this then.
Why do you think any TEST should be mandatory when there hasn't been a massive spike in violence, accidental shootings, missed shots, bad shoots, etc... in Constitutional Carry states?
Forget the previous rhetoric, let's focus on the actual issue.
I said class, as in the only way you can qualify for a CCW as there is no other opportunity to show your skill without sitting through the class.
Fine, let's do this then.
Why do you think any TEST should be mandatory when there hasn't been a massive spike in violence, accidental shootings, missed shots, bad shoots, etc... in Constitutional Carry states?
Forget the previous rhetoric, let's focus on the actual issue.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
And you keep putting up some vaporous wall between these various requirements as though they are meaningful.
Skills test? Training? Courses? Classes? What is the flippin' difference to a person who has to pay and take personal time to go do, prove, show, demonstrate, etc. to the state's satisfaction before exercising a right?
You're STILL arguing for a "NO-GO" from the state unless ... something.
That's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. And MANY states have demonstrated for decades (at least) that there is NO PUBLIC BENEFIT.
No public benefit = insufficient public justification for infringement of a right.
The test here isn't "oh, can you imagine what horrible things someone COULD do if they don't first pass our test?" The test here is, "what actually HAPPENS?"
And what actually happens, statistically speaking, is nothing. So, no justification for this restriction. Nada.
I am not misrepresenting my statements.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. You WANT people to have to jump through this little governmental hoop. I'm granting you the benefit of assuming that your reason for forcing them to do this is public safety.
If it isn't... what is it? We don't want to go back to the money question, do we?
I didn't mean to shame you. My apologies.
No, you are not clearly stating you want people to have to take a month long CHL class. You DID say that these CHL classes are (to paraphrase) largely useless for imparting any skills.
Yes. I understand the difference.
You support mandatory TESTING. Great. Ok. I don't see a whole lot of difference between a mandatory class, a mandatory legal lecture (probably the most valuable thing), or a mandatory "skills test" as a barrier to obtaining your right to carry. The cost could be high or low, times could be long or short -- we're just haggling over price at that point.
When you're haggling over price, the camel's nose is already under the tent, as they say. A bit late to be standing on the principle.
Of course it's just fine! That's business, right?
But don't say you offer the course because it gets students into your class so you can offer them more expensive/thorough training (marketing) and then say you have no financial interest in keeping mandatory courses required.
You do. Getting customers in the door so you can up-sell them your more revenue-producing products is basic salesmanship. It is an investment (call it a loss leader if you want) intended to make you money.
So what? That has proved to be NO SOCIAL BENEFIT to the public.
Did I mention that none of the states that don't require training or TESTS has any higher levels of accident, negligence, or lawless action than those with the very most restrictive requirements?
If I forgot to say so, shame on me!
You're being disingenuous. Training, classes, TESTING, ... whatever. This is NOT a net social benefit. So, why would you, or anyone, support the imposition on a fundamental right?
You can rail against people conflating mandatory training with mandatory TESTING, but it's a substance-less distinction in this discussion.
You support a skills test. There is no benefit to a skills test, and a large number of states don't require such at all -- to no ill effect whatsoever. Why do you support it?
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Let me be very clear. There is NOTHING wrong with business, free market, salesmanship, or having a financial interest in something. That's capitalism and that's a great economic system.
I'm very much pro-training, and pro-trainER. I support the work of our training community fully and advocate training at every opportunity.
I also feel it is extremely important that we understand the distinction between the state's interest in having restrictions and control, and the actual value of training and legal instruction. And most importantly, the underlying issue of the state placing restrictions on the exercise of a fundamental right -- with or without a compelling social benefit.
We need to be very clear and open and honest if we are going to support the state FORCING the citizens to use services we receive some (ANY) financial benefit for providing.
Otherwise we're no better than a thousand other industry and trade organizations pushing for increased restrictions, regulations, requirements, tightened codes, and limitations which enable the government to force the people to purchase that industry's products or services.
Last edited:
OP
OP
BSA1
member
The State receives $100.00 and the Sheriff receives $32.50. The money to the Sheriff is to pay for the fingerprinting on the applicant and sending it in to the State Conceal Carry Unit.
I near as I can determine all the Sheriff is responsible for is the fingerprinting, filling out their portion of the application and mailing it in.
I suspect that the A.G. would like to do away with permits. When the law was first passed his office had some many applications he had to reallocate employees to process them. Of course by now the number of applications had slowed down but he still must have some employees and a supervisor assigned to process and approval the applications.
- Status
Similar threads
