Concealed Permit Requirements

[Soybomb]

No. That is not the extension of my logic. Carrying a loaded weapon in public carries a greater responsibility with it than merely having a loaded weapon at home. At some basic level though, I would like to know that the person preparing to use the weapon in a public area has a basic level of proficiency.

Now wait a minute in your first post you essentially said you thought it was important to both protect non-involved parties around the shooting and to be sure that people knew the law regarding shootings. How do those not apply in my home? If you need to spoon feed me the law for concealed carry, why don't you need to spoon feed the law for defending myself at home? If you're worried about the guy next to a person getting shot at, aren't you just as worried about the neighbors in the apartment 4 sheets of dry wall over?

Honestly, you see those people at the range that can't hit the target two feet in front of them? Do you want to be standing next to that "target" when they have to defend themselves in public? I'm not saying I expect everyone to be an expert shooter, but I would expect people to be able to hit center of mass from 7-10 feet. There's some people who are so bad, they can't even do that.

Way back in the day I thought concealed carry was a bad idea no matter what. I couldn't imagine that the general public could be trusted to carry use guns safely. I went looking for statistics to support my position and found that my guess was just wrong. What I worried about happening just didn't happen. Does what you worry about happening actually happen?

A CCW class is not an infringement. It's a pain in the neck at worst.

I suppose this comes down to opinions but I disagree strongly. To most of us a couple hundred bucks for training classes, background checks, an afternoon off work to visit the sheriff's office, etc are no big deal. Some people, often the people who live in areas with high crime rates, might find the costs and hoops very prohibitive. Again I ask, what problem is there in alaska and vermont that we need to fix by having permits?

Folks, I'm not enthralled by the idea of a permit.

You'll forgive me if I take that as a half-hearted statement given that you're supporting them.

. They're expensive (at least in Texas) and a pain to get (11 hour class in Texas).

No infringement you say...

But the class isn't worthless.

Great we're getting to the heart of the matter at last. I want to see the tangible benefits. What stats can you provide that show that the training classes in Texas make carrying in Texas better than in states without such requirements? If its just better because you say so, your claim doesn't seem any more valid than the brady group saying that the assault weapons ban makes things better.

Just like all the other threads on the issue, plenty of gun owners support licensing, mandatory training, testing, etc but no one can step forward and show any evidence that supports the notion that those infringements make concealed carry any safer or fix any problems. Don't be like the brady group guys, look for facts and evidence before you say that gun control is a good idea. Its hard enough fighting the antis, we don't need gun owners giving up ground voluntarily too.

 

[M203Sniper]

Arizona requires 8 hours and that you hit paper that's pretty minimal, and I almost agree with the statement;

Never_retreat

I voted for No one should have to have a permit.
But I think it should be just marked on your drivers license whether you can or can not own a firearm. Simple

but I'll fix it for you; I voted for No one should be required to have a permit, they can always legally Open Carry. But I think it should be just marked on your drivers license if you can not legally PURCHASE a firearm. Like if you require an ignition interlock for being a drunkard, punitive and Simple


A competency test is legitimate if it is equally applied & strictly for CC.
CCW's should be valid in 50 states & Puerto Rico.
OC should be legal.
and I'll add that if a business has a parking lot for customers they can not keep all the Imports off of their lot, neither could a business keep "some" members of the public out for a legal action, like Open Carry. Now let's see that kinda legislation.

for some of us this is a step back, but for others it is a huge leap forward. Just Level the field.

 

[230RN]

Double post

 

[Prince Yamato]

Great we're getting to the heart of the matter at last. I want to see the tangible benefits. What stats can you provide that show that the training classes in Texas make carrying in Texas better than in states without such requirements? If its just better because you say so, your claim doesn't seem any more valid than the brady group saying that the assault weapons ban makes things better.

Easy pilgrim, them's fightin' words. I'm not for an AWB. NEVER have been. The only rifles I own are AKs, so that would be rather stupid. Check another thread I started- I'm looking at buying a suppressor in the coming year.

And do NOT paint me against CCW, because I assure you I am NOT against CCW. Nor am I FOR weapons registration. However, I do not view CCW licensing as an infringement because you can still legally carry concealed IF there is an emergency need (affirmative defense).

I'm merely saying that there's nothing wrong with a CCW permit system. In a perfect world, we'd all be taught gun safety and basic marksmanship in school- we don't live in that world. Long story short, there are those who simply cannot accurately shoot to save their life (literally), let alone another's. Similarly, there are those who cannot drive worth a damn- I don't mean the "bad drivers" on the road. I'm talking about people who have complete inability to control a motor vehicle. Now, I don't care if these people buy a car and drive it in circles around their house or up and down their driveway- a familiar surrounding, but I sure don't want them driving on the expressway. Similarly, I don't worry so much about an inexperienced shooter firing a weapon in their home- again, a familiar surrounding. And honestly, I don't worry about over penetration from handgun rounds in a home. If the round hits something else in the home, it's probably the couch or the TV. The same person firing defensively in a crowded theatre, is a different matter. The bulk of the excess material, is flesh.

Look, I'm not saying you have to be an FBI marksman to get a CCW. If you can hit center of mass, you're fine. I have personally witnessed a woman at a CCW class who missed the damn target at 5 feet. That person does NOT need to be carrying a weapon in public. She can't use it effectively. I'd say the same thing about her using a circular saw if she consistently missed cuts by 10-15 inches. At any rate, she didn't get a permit.

There were however, many people who did and rightly so. The showed they were proficient enough to handle the weapon. Again, not FBI marksmen, but they could all put down a miscreant if need be. And so I don't have to post again... yes, I do support the same requirement for the police. If Officer Bob is missing low and right by 5 feet, no gun for you Officer Bob.

I want unrestricted CCW. I want all CCW holders to be able to carry in schools- elementary, highschool, college, medical school. You should be able to carry. What I don't want is the functionally incompetent example I keep mentioning to get a CCW. Picture that person using their weapon in a defensive situation in a school, missing low and right by feet and hitting a kid. You want bad press for CCW holders? There you go- oh yeah and you have a dead kid.

I'll add another example:

I often post in threads that the day NYC goes "shall issue", I'd probably move there. Would you honestly want (again) said person who misses low and right by 5 feet to draw her weapon and shoot at an attacker on the subway-missing? I sure as hell wouldn't. Are you one of those who subscribes to the notion that "a few casualties are worth it for the greater freedom?" I'm assuming you're probably not. Now, I realize that there is no way to eliminate all accidental shootings, but they can be reduced by having a basic shooting requirement.

And for God's sake, I don't support magazine restrictions or any of that garbage. So quit it with the, "first they came for" crap.

Finally, I don't have any direct stats to back up my statement. Hell, maybe I'm completely wrong. It's my preference though, that those who make it their business to defend life around me can do so competently. With the Texas system, at least I know that the CCWers can hit center of mass. That's at least 300,000-some people who can do that and there is documented proof that they can do that.

 

[230RN]

It's reasonable to require a permit.

It's reasonable to require a class to get the permit

It's reasonable to require a four hour class.

It's reasonable to require an eleven hour class.

It's reasonable to require a 48 hour class.

It's reasonable to charge $25 for the permit.

It's reasonable to charge $150 for the permit.

It's reasonable to charge $1500 for the permit.

It's reasonable to require that you only carry the gun you qualified with.

It's reasonable to restrict the magazine capacity to ten rounds.

It's reasonable to limit the power of your carry piece.

It's reasonable to limit the caliber of your carry piece.

It's reasonable to limit the bullet type in your carry piece cartridges.

It's reasonable to require that your cartridge is limited to 600 f/s.

It's reasonable to require that you keep your firearms disassembled when at home.

It's reasonable to require a locking mechanism within your gun.

Anything else reasonable? I've almost run out of breath....

[deep breath] Ah, OK.

It's reasonable to require a $200 NFA tax

It's reasonable to require a $5000 NFA tax

It's reasonable to deny suppressors for firearms without a $200 stamp.

It's reasonable to deny supressors without a $5000 stamp.

It's reasonable to ban barrel shrouds.

It's reasonable to ban centerfire rifles over cal .50.

It's reasonable to ban centerfire rifles over cal .30.

It's reasonable to ban muzzleloading rifles with scopes.

It's reasonable to ban use of any scope over 4 power.

It's reasonable to

 

[Prince Yamato]

Here is irony on THR...

People bitch out "the sheep" and following blindly, yet if you don't follow lock-step with everyone on here, you are chided. Who's the sheep?

So far, in the past two days, I've been called:

an anti
a queer
a Democrat

I am none of the three.

If you don't like differences of opinion or don't want to hear them, don't offer the options in your polls.

 

[jakemccoy]

Be careful what you wish for with your "reasonable" requirements. Before you know it, you'll be forced to navigate through California-type requirements, such as "may issue" permits (also known as "no issue" permits). I totally see how California got to where it is. Gun owners like some people on this site wanted the requirements. The anti-gun people just followed up with extra weight.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

And do NOT paint me against CCW, because I assure you I am NOT against CCW. Nor am I FOR weapons registration. However, I do not view CCW licensing as an infringement because you can still legally carry concealed IF there is an emergency need (affirmative defense).

And here again, what may be true for Texas MUST be true everywhere, right?

There is no such exception or affirmative defense in my state, or in most states that require a license or permit for concealed carry. A requirement for a license or a permit IS an infringement. Do you understand what the word "infringe" means? Look it up. Anything that in any way limits, restricts, or curtails the right to keep and bear arms is, by definition, an "infringement."

 

[22-rimfire]

Life is full of compromises.
I don't particularly like filling out the Federal Form 4473 to purchase a firearm.
I certainly don't like the NICs check done on me when I purchase a firearm.
I don't like having to give my finger prints to purchase a firearm in TN.
I don't like being forced to take a class to teach me most of what I already know for CCW.
I don't like spending around $150 for a CCW permit in TN.
I don't like new "reasonable" gun control laws under consideration.
I don't like Mayor Fenty even though I have never met him.

I don't like sweet tea. That about covers it!

I'm no lawyer and I'm certainly not a politician. I think many things are an infringement on my rights relative to guns. I suspect it is perfectly legal at this time for the federal government and states to require all the things I don't like regardless of my opinion. The mayor is another matter. The fight goes on.

 

[230RN]

Honestly, you see those people at the range that can't hit the target two feet in front of them? Do you want to be standing next to that "target" when they have to defend themselves in public?

I think maybe that's why they're at the range.

I, on the other hand, punched Xs all day long the first time I picked up a gun.

Glad you did, too.

 

[dogrunner]

Well, Yamato, I certainly woulden't brand you as anything other than a product of your environment. You're from Texas, a State that requires some pretty close regulation of pistol packin'........much, much more so than most other of our Western States. Likely that's a product of the cultural base that settled a lot of that neck of the woods. You seem to want to accept those regulations as "reasonable". Apparently a substantial amount of the posters hereon don't....certainly I don't, but my 'cultural' background is from the hills of W.va, and in most of the Appalachians the "gun culture" is older than the United States itself.....! In fact, the people of West Virginia TOOK BACK their right to keep and carry (open without any license) after over 70 years of extreme "regulation" that really amounted to prohibition! I know of no other jurisdiction that was so stringently regulated to have done so!
So yes, I DO think you are influenced by those attitudes and cultural mores prevelant where you are. Now, Florida, where I've lived for over fifty years has an interesting dichotomy of values.....The extreme southern tip is reflective of the eastern liberal establish attitude on the subject....with notable exceptions the balance of the State is way over the tipping point in the other direction...........which is why Florida led the pack with CCW reform, and qualification along with most regulation is about as minimal as we could get it.......and we're not done yet!

You are simply reflecting what you accept and where you live...simple as that!

 

[Gunnerpalace]

If you don't like differences of opinion or don't want to hear them, don't offer the options in your polls.

Don't worry it happens it is an Internet forum, the reason we have seen this increase is disappointed people who thought Heller was going to remove every single gun law ever enacted. which, was never going to happen, I find it interesting to see the zeal people have for Vermont carry across the US but, also think 922o will never go away.

Oh yeah,

It's reasonable to require a permit.

It's reasonable to require a class to get the permit

It's reasonable to require a four hour class.

It's reasonable to charge $25 for the permit.

It's reasonable to require a $200 NFA tax

I find these reasonable.

 

[Soybomb]

Easy pilgrim, them's fightin' words. I'm not for an AWB. NEVER have been. The only rifles I own are AKs, so that would be rather stupid. Check another thread I started- I'm looking at buying a suppressor in the coming year.

I never said you were for an awb, I was trying to draw a comparison. There is no evidence that an AWB does anything for public safety. The antis support them anyway because despite having no evidence, they feel like they're a good thing. You have no evidence that these carry conditions/restrictions increase safety but support them anyway. It hardly seems fair that we hammer the bradys for supporting laws that have no evidence of effectiveness and then doing the same thing ourselves does it?

Would you honestly want (again) said person who misses low and right by 5 feet to draw her weapon and shoot at an attacker on the subway-missing? I sure as hell wouldn't.

And the bradys say there will be shoot outs over parking spaces if we allow concealed carry. Of course concealed carry is already here and they can't prove what they fear actually happens. Why can we strike down their baseless fears yet you feel like yours deserve respect. If what you're saying does actually happen then lets see it. Shouldn't we have a problem before we try to fix it?

I do not view CCW licensing as an infringement because you can still legally carry concealed IF there is an emergency need (affirmative defense).

In your own words you said its a pain because of the time involved and expensive. Aren't those barriers to entry for people?

Are you one of those who subscribes to the notion that "a few casualties are worth it for the greater freedom?" I'm assuming you're probably not. Now, I realize that there is no way to eliminate all accidental shootings, but they can be reduced by having a basic shooting requirement.

Think of the children! Seriously though we're not even down to the matter of "greater public safety vs. maximum freedom" because you haven't provided any evidence of increased safety. You need to first demonstrate that these restrictions do lead to eliminating some accidental shootings before we can have that debate.

Finally, I don't have any direct stats to back up my statement. Hell, maybe I'm completely wrong. It's my preference though, that those who make it their business to defend life around me can do so competently.

How is that different than when the brady group says its their preference to be sure that those who own handguns in the same neighborhoods and apartment buildings they live in are trained to use and store their guns safely? How is it different than when they say its their preference that people living around them not have "assault weapons" because it makes them feel safer?

In the end nothing I say will convince you that what you ask for is unnecessary and wrong. I would ask that you challenge your own beliefs though. There are a number of us here who spend a great deal of time campaigning for more 2nd amendment rights and its terrible to spend all that time doing so and having people on our own team chipping away at what we're trying to do. You don't have any stats and admit you might be wrong and already own guns. Thats a better start than I usually have going into things. Go looking for the statistics to back up your position. Maybe mandatory training and testing doesn't make concealed carry safer than states without it. If it doesn't, quit supporting additional restrictions on self defense. But at the least spend a little time researching the effectiveness of the laws your supporting. If you're right, come tell us about it. We can use that information to make concealed carry better. You'd be doing the entire gun rights community a service.

People bitch out "the sheep" and following blindly, yet if you don't follow lock-step with everyone on here, you are chided. Who's the sheep?

Only 42% of the people in this thread agree with me at this time, you're in the majority when it comes to wanting permits. I don't care for the term sheep but I think if you want to be thought of as a thinking guy and not a sheep you need to be able to support your opinions and arguments with substantial fact and not guesses.

 

[Prince Yamato]

How is that different than when the brady group says its their preference to be sure that those who own handguns in the same neighborhoods and apartment buildings they live in are trained to use and store their guns safely? How is it different than when they say its their preference that people living around them not have "assault weapons" because it makes them feel safer?

Because I'm not saying there should be a mandatory training requirement for purchasing a weapon. I'm saying if you choose to purchase a weapon, with the intent to carry it and use it in a public and possibly crowded surrounding, you should have a minimum level of shooting proficiency. Also, I would never advocate for "safe storage" laws of any small arms. That's an asinine concept. Assault Weapons, like "machine guns" are a made up category of weapons and I don't have a problem with either. What your talking about is a chunk of metal coming out of a piece of formed metal at high-speed. Who cares what the formed piece of metal looks like?

You're from Texas, a State that requires some pretty close regulation of pistol packin'........much, much more so than most other of our Western States.

Yes, but our permit is allows us to carry in more places than most western states.

There are a number of us here who spend a great deal of time campaigning for more 2nd amendment rights and its terrible to spend all that time doing so and having people on our own team chipping away at what we're trying to do.

You know, I don't go to marches, and I don't have money to join the NRA, but I do my part as well. I'm a strong advocate of CCW, especially in schools. I study (PhD student) and work (teacher) in those "sensitive areas" covered under the recent Heller decision- so it's a very important issue to me. I work on converting the real antis (the far-far left people I work with), not bitching out the perceived antis (who you apparently think I am). Yes, the real anti-gun people, like the ones who live in restrictive areas like NY and CA (and have had little exposure to firearms other than the evening news) that some people on this forum consider "not part of the real US" or even people from *gasp* Dallas, a city which some Texans say, "is not really Texas". If you've read any of my other posts, you'd see that one of my goals is to see "shall issue" CCW in NYC and removal of both NYS and NYC AWBs.

Do you understand what the word "infringe" means? Look it up. Anything that in any way limits, restricts, or curtails the right to keep and bear arms is, by definition, an "infringement."

So NICS, preventing a mentally ill person from obtaining a weapon is an infringement? The NFA background check preventing the same person from buying an RPG is an infringement? Hardly. If you're not a criminal they're just a pain in the neck. I'll put up with a 5 minute NICS wait if it prevents mentally ill people from purchasing guns at my favorite store. The NFA could move a little faster though. I'll concede that. Perhaps if they could merge that with NICS. Anyhow, I don't consider 5 minutes of my time an infringement. 11 hours for an initial class is a long time, but I found the class informative and so did others. If you compare it to the time I've spent in undergrad up until now, 11 hours really isn't that long either. Knowing the law is important. I'll take an 11 hour course. I think permit turn around time should be faster though. And I mean 24-72 hour turnaround, not weeks.

 

[dogrunner]

Yamato: What'd you mean "more places"....you referring to reciprocity or just general carry locale? Y'know I mentioned W.Va as a comparator, and all that State requires is some minimal type of training for a ccw......openly, well then it's do as you will....but allows that ccw nearly everywhere. Pennsylvania's the same....I really don't think that a Texas CHL allows nearly the carry freedom that one here in Florida does, and I'm sure you don't have the reciprocity agreements we do.....or am I mistaken! Further, Wyoming and Montana are extremely liberal. My take is that Texas is one of the MOST restrictive licensing States around.

 

[FieroCDSP]

In Ohio, we need 12 hours minimum class time., 10 of instruction and 2 hours live-fire. IN my particular class, we had eight hours of laws and basic shooting methods, sight alignment, etc, and then four hours of basic live fire instruction and then drawing from holster to engage, shot placement, etc.

96% of what I heard and did in the class I've learned on my own, in my own time. It was only after I learned basics, gained experience in live-fire, and learned as much as I could about safety, that I decided I would try open carry. Through my experience I learned to respect the arm and what it could do, and how best to keep myself and others safe.

Now, none of us want known criminals to have guns, but you can hardly stop that. Few of us are comfortable with the idea of someone with no knowledge of a firearm carrying one in public, openly or concealed. That lack of knowledge is simply not conductive to responsibility. We want people that are willing to invest time and effort into becoming responsible enough to use their firearm in a safe manner.

So where does that leave us?
The gun culture is a self-governing group in its base form. If all of those selling guns are responsible persons, they make sure to recommend a safety and basic handling course to a first time gun buyer. The instructors (or even a book about gun handling/safety) are responsible for teaching people what they need to safely use the gun, etc...
The gun owner is the first responsibility. It is that person who has the legal and moral duty to know their gun, know the law, and be willing to invest time and energy into learning those.
But if no one ever tells them that they should get training, how are they supposed to know?

It's not a black/white issue. While the owner bears ultimate responsibility for their actions with the gun, the gun culture at-large bears a responsibility to do a minimum part in making sure each individual knows that responsibility comes from training and experience, not simply from owning.
I think the gun control laws in some states (Ohio for example; you know, the places it's easier to get one) are in place largely to ensure those who choose to take the time to learn responsibility are the ones getting the guns. Infringement exists when someone decides that people shouldn't have the chance to learn how to become responsible.

So where does my rambling leave me? I think the gun culture as a whole needs to step up a bit more and the government needs to take many steps back. The people that intentionally/accidently murder someone with a gun are already committing a crime. That's when the government should step in, say:"you're a criminal", and deal with that person.
It is in our best interest as gunnies to make sure those around us are trained, and responsible. Gun stores should inquire (politely, of course) to a person who seems like they might not know what they're doing, as to whether that person has had training, etc, and while completing the sale, strongly recommend training, and the reasons why it's beneficial. It then becomes that person's responsibility to learn what they can.

Sheesh...what a mess. Am I making any kind of sense? I don't think licenses should be necessary, but at this point, there are times when I'm glad they are, at least to carry concealed. OC is something a lot of people are uncomfortable with, for one reason or another, and kind of self-regulates. You have a gun on your hip, and people are watching you.
Maybe I'm just rambling after all. Anyway, we shouldn't need the government to govern over something we can govern ourselves with a bit more dilligence.

 

[M203Sniper]

It is not a black and white issue.

It is not a state issue either.

The ability to regulate CCW OC and Firearms purchases should be taken away from the states and "DC" and given to one Federal standard.

 

[texas bulldog]

The topic of this post is concealed carry, not open. I don't know where the majority of people on TheHighRoad stand on the open carry vs concealed carry debate...but it's not arguable to me. Open carry is ridiculous as a regular means of carry in my opinion. Concealed gives you the element of suprise and doesn't make it any more appealing to the bad guy to make you target #1. So let me rephrase: you need a permit to legally concealed carry in almost all states, period.

well if you say so, then surely it must be true. like yamato, you might want to find some evidence that these assertions are fact.

again...restrictions that cannot be supported by evidence that they actually improve the situation have no place in our gun laws.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Yamato: What'd you mean "more places"....you referring to reciprocity or just general carry locale?

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant general locales. Like churches, restaurants (that don't have the 51% signs) and school property (though not school buildings). I think NY trumps TX though, as they don't mind carry in bars. What I was getting at is that some "pro-gun" states have restrictions on places like churches and restaurants. The bar restriction cheeses me off as does the school one, but those are basically the last "hold outs" in our state.

 

[yeti]

While in an ideal world Vermont type carry should be universal, personally, I'm not sure letting any yahoo stuff a gun in their pants and go out in public is really such a good idea.

Yet, being far from the ideal world, our gun laws work for us. Now possibly having permits for procreation, or being anywhere around children, might be more suitable here, our gun laws(or lack of) are fine.

The ability to regulate CCW OC and Firearms purchases should be taken away from the states and "DC" and given to one Federal standard.

NOOOooooo thank you! I do not need the Feds to tell me I need some kind of government permit. I don't need a permit to carry open or concealed now, I sure don't want the Feds helping protect my rights by requiring me to obtain some goverment approved permit, no matter how easy they make it to obtain one.

 

[Mil-Spec45]

The fact is (sad fact) is that guns will be regulated from here on out no matter what we want or what we want to think.

People always compare 2A with 1A, but let's look at 1A...You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't say the "F" word over public TV, radio, or some other public places, you cannot slander or defame someone, you cannot commit purgery in court, you cannot file a false report to police officers (i.e. "I was raped"), you cannot give false news in newspapers or news channels. Someone commiting some of the above acts could be monetarily fined or jailed, even though there is a freedom of speech. So how can people sit there and say 1st amendment isn't regulated or infringed?

I'm glad I get to concealed carry at all...it's relatively new to my state and nowhere in the constitution does not specify concealed carry as an option under "bearing" of arms, which is why it's left to the state. I wish it did. But it doesn't.

 

[Autolycus]

What if we let Diane Feinstein or Sarah Brady decide the amount of training required? Would everyone be ok with that?

I voted for no permit required. Its a right.

 

[Soybomb]

People always compare 2A with 1A, but let's look at 1A...You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't say the "F" word over public TV, radio, or some other public places, you cannot slander or defame someone, you cannot commit purgery in court, you cannot file a false report to police officers (i.e. "I was raped"), you cannot give false news in newspapers or news channels. Someone commiting some of the above acts could be monetarily fined or jailed, even though there is a freedom of speech. So how can people sit there and say 1st amendment isn't regulated or infringed?

Those examples don't seem to be infringements but just ways that people are responsible for what they do with their freedom of speech just as you're responsible for what you do with your freedom to keep and bear arms. Using your free speech irresponsibly in a way that might harm other, like yelling fire, might cause harm to others and bring punishment to you. Similarly if you behave irresponsibly with your firearm in a way that could harm others, you might be deserving of punishment as well. Note that we don't have a free speech licensing system with tests and training.

nowhere in the constitution does not specify concealed carry as an option under "bearing" of arms

The constitution is not an all inclusive document. Note that bear arms doesn't say in any particular fashion, open, concealed, at home, etc. I don't know why you would expect to include a list any more than you'd expect the first amendment to explicitly mention electronic communication or the 4th amendment to list telephone conversations.

 

[saspic]

originally posted by Prince Yamato
What I was getting at is that some "pro-gun" states have restrictions on places like churches and restaurants. The bar restriction cheeses me off as does the school one, but those are basically the last "hold outs" in our state.

Me too! Have you joined the Texas State Rifle Association yet? I just became a life member.

http://www.tsra.com/?p=page&id=1

I understand this year we are focusing on getting pro gun legislators elected for next year's session. We already know Governor Perry is receptive to expanding right to carry, so it's time to push!

 

[ctdonath]

While in an ideal world Vermont type carry should be universal, personally, I'm not sure letting any yahoo stuff a gun in their pants and go out in public is really such a good idea.

Let's analyze that idea: in Vermont (and Alaska), any yahoo CAN stuff a gun in their pants and go out in public - and it doesn't seem to be a problem. ...so what's the problem?