Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states - Page 5

Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

This is a discussion on Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by ksholder Glockman - I hear where you are coming from. Unfortunately it is a bit like the guy and gal discussing having ...

Page 5 of 36 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #61
    Senior Member Array Luis50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Glockman - I hear where you are coming from. Unfortunately it is a bit like the guy and gal discussing having sex. The guy asks the girl if she would have sex with him. She says no. He asks if he were to pay $1 million to her, would she have sex, she answers yes. At that point all they have left is to haggle over the final price.

    If we do not interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean what it says, it will shortly mean absolutely nothing. Once the barrier is broken, it is simply up to the government to define where the barrier is.

    As for your example, I would hope my wife and kids (my kids are adults) have enough SA to realize the danger the doofus is and remove themselves from the situation. If I am there, I will remove them myself, but they should be able to assess the situation and do it themselves.
    I think training is invaluable. I pay for a lot of it each year. I do not, however, believe that the government should redefine the 2A (I know it already has) to say something it does not say. Just my $0.02, YMMV.

    ETA - Alternatively, if training does become manditory, make it a manditory class in high school without which you cannot graduate. :)
    I'll try not to speak for Glockman10mm but, I think he's speaking of the person standing next to you in a public place fiddling with the unholstered firearm in his pocket as an example. A similar situation occured here in Florida not too long ago. A child ended up with injuries from the ricochet.
    Luis

    "Everybody's got a plan, 'til they get hit".

    Mike Tyson


  2. #62
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    It is an enigma to me how we put so much value on education for everything in this country, yet balk at the idea of mandatory education before carrying a firearm among the public.
    It's the "before" part that bothers people, not the education. It's a fundamental right to bear arms. That means to carry arms in public. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say shall not be infringed, after all the government mandated training.

    Additionally frustrating is the idea that somehow having a standard for this upsurps ones Constitutional right to the exercise thereof. Since having a CCW permit is already established, a more stringent and informative CCW class could be instituted and funded from the sale of confiscated property from drug busts or even drug money.
    It certainly does usurp our right. The fundamental right isn't what the government chooses to leave us with after it strips away all of the right it wants to on the whim of the majority.


    Thinking outside the box is a little difficult, I know, but it would benefit all gun owners in the long haul. Because sooner or later, if we don't , the Goverment will, and we won't have a say.
    So, yeah. They don't want to take our guns. We just need to go ahead and register our guns. Pay our license fees and taxes on our guns. Let them microchip our ammo. Turn in all our mean looking guns with all those big looking magazines. If we just go along with all their neat ideas telling us how we should store our guns. Sure sure, lets all just turn our guns into the government until we get "properly" trained. If we just go along with all these great ideas, you know, letting the government regulate those ideas into law. Then everything will be just sunshine and lollipops for us gun owners right? Cause if we don't go along, the government is going to do it anyway? We won't have any say in what the Government does? Really?

  3. #63
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by GH View Post
    I haven't seen any statistics dealing with illegal or negligent activity by those allowed to carry a firearm, concealed or open. I wouldn't have any ideas where to even find them.

    I believe that the 2nd Amendment should be the only permission that a person needs but if training is required it should be classes on the state's laws on concealed carry & firearms in general as well as safely handling a firearm. In those classes actual hands-on training should be strongly urged & offered at low cost. Proficiency in shooting safely & being able to hit your target should be stressed but not mandated by law.
    Let me get this right. You think people should be allowed to carry a firearm on their person, with the sole purpose of possibly shooting and killing someone in self defense, yet they should not have to demonstrate their ability to safely handle a firearm, hit targets with reasonable accuracy, or demonstrate an understanding of laws and concerns surrounding self defense?

    The Second Amendment does grant the right to keep and bear arms, but there are reasonable concerns that need to be addressed to balance personal safety and the safety of others. Free speech and assembly are guaranteed by the Constitution too, but there are still reasonable restrictions on those rights; you aren't free to verbally threaten people, you aren't free to write slanderous comments about people, and you have to get permits to conduct demonstrations. The same can, does, and should apply to the Second Amendment to prevent an uneducated and unskilled firearm owner from carrying in public. Rights have responsibilities attached to them and, unfortunately, Americans, as a whole, are extremely irresponsible and we have demonstrated that time and time again throughout history.
    Hopyard and Ogre like this.

  4. #64
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Luis50 View Post
    I'll try not to speak for Glockman10mm but, I think he's speaking of the person standing next to you in a public place fiddling with the unholstered firearm in his pocket as an example. A similar situation occured here in Florida not too long ago. A child ended up with injuries from the ricochet.
    Let me see, does Florida have a training requirement to issue a permit? Oh Yeah, Florida does. So the required training didn't help?

    Please note that we are now more then 60 posts in and not one has actually even tried to answer the OPs question with facts.

    Ken

  5. #65
    Senior Member Array DocT65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Gulf Coast
    Posts
    595
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    OK,

    I see a lot of folks saying that mandatory training and mandatory qualification is needed and should be required for a CHL. They state that it is for the protection of the public at large and for the protection of the person carrying the gun.

    Please, somebody show me stats, hard evidence, that mandatory training states are better than non mandatory training states as far as
    1. The wrongful use of a firearm by CHL/CCP holder
    2. Inicidents of arrests for trespassing by CHL/CCP holders
    3. Errant shots fired by CHL/CCP holders
    4. Illegel use of a fireamr by CHL/CCP holders EDIT:such as brandishing, bad shoots, ects....NOT crimes committed malichievously)

    Feel free to throw in other data.

    I understand that it may be the opinion of folks that training should be mandatory or not. But...if that is your opinion and you think it should be law then I would hope that you guys have the data to prove it. I for oone do not like laws neing made with anecdotal evidence or one or two spectacular events. That is like pushing through the AWB because of very isolted cases of misues of madman using those weapons.

    Laws should be made to protect the public and their should be data to back it up.

    OK...ball is in your court.

    There is, in fact, data demonstrating the efficacy of firearms training. I can cite a few examples here:

    Prevention of Handgun Accidents Through Owner Training. Miller, et al., Dept. of Criminology, East TN State Univ. Int Q Community Health Educ. 1989 Jan.
    The authors examined 294 handgun owners over a five year period to determine the effectiveness of handgun training on accident reduction. The results were statistically significant and support the need for owner training.

    The Risk of Involuntary Firearms Discharge. Heim, et al., Universitat Frankfort, Institute of Sports Science. Hum Factors. 2006 Fall
    Dr. Heim utilized two experiments demonstrating that practice/training improved police aim while reducing involuntary gun discharges, supporting the effectiveness of such training on real-life situations.

    Reality-based Practice Under Pressure Improves Handgun Shooting Performance of Police Officers. Oudejans, RR. Research Institute MOVE, Univ of Amsterdam. Ergonomics. 2008 March.
    This study examined the utilization of reality based practice/training under pressure in preventing the degradation of handgun shooting performance in police officers. Data showed such training exercises acclimatized shooting performance of the subject officers.

    And, not to neglect the kiddies:

    Comparison of Two Programs to Teach Firearm Injury Prevention Skills to 6 and 7 year old Children. Gatheridge, et al., Dept. of Psychology, ND State Univ. Pediatrics. 2004, Sept.
    Dr. Gatheridge and 6 other colleages performed this study involving training of 6 & 7 year olds in preventing accidental firearm injuries. Using active learning approaches of modeling, rehearsal and feedback, they confirmed that this program was effective in teaching the desired safety skills to this research cohort of 45 children.

    Evaluation of Age-Appropriate Firearm Safety Interventions. Howard, PK. Dept. of Emergency Med, Univ of Kentucky Hosp. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2005, Jul.
    Dr. Howard’s study tested the effects of 3 levels of firearms safety training on school age children. In the group of 57, an 81% increase in knowledge was demonstrated with ongoing long term retention .

    The assertion comparing “trained CC holders to untrained” is essentially a mute point, as the study you describe would be essentially impossible to design and complete with any degree of scientific accuracy. In the absence of such “hard data”, as you describe, we must rely on available data in ascertaining the effectiveness of firearms training. I’ve offered some here, there is more in the scientific literature. The available data, coupled with the fact that there was no identified data to the contrary, infers that training is in fact effective, and given the stakes involved, should be required for those choosing to carry a firearm in public---concealed or open.
    Hopyard likes this.
    "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

    Flight Surgeon, USAF
    Law Enforcement Tactical Surgeon

    NRA Patron Member

  6. #66
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    Why do you presume that people go out in public with no idea of what is proper or legal? Why do you presume that people will go out and just start shooting at the wrong time, wrong target, or just plain miss their intended target, shooting you and yours?
    Well, it might just be me but I think there are quite a few people with cc permits that think they are 'better' than others, esp. the 'sheep.' That carrying a firearm sets them above the general populace....all that 'responsibility' and 'we're protecting the public,' (Some of you anyway) and 'we're all on the same side with the cops,' etc.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  7. #67
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    Well if proving anything one way or the other was a criteria for responding to this thread, then this Forum would be out of business.
    Funny thing how gun people wear the constitution like a banner, yet admonish opinions.
    I guess prove was the wrong word...provide support for your belief or opinion?

    Your reasons, in other words. And I mean reasons that would support changes to the laws, not necessarily personal feelings. I object to quite a few things personally that I support legally, like the right of drug store owners not to provide the morning after pill. I think they should, I think it's counterproductive not to, but I also dont believe the govt has the right to force them to carry something they believe is wrong.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  8. #68
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyKen View Post
    Let me see, does Florida have a training requirement to issue a permit? Oh Yeah, Florida does. So the required training didn't help?

    Please note that we are now more then 60 posts in and not one has actually even tried to answer the OPs question with facts.

    Ken
    The facts you are trying to find don't exist. You cannot quantify the number of firearm related injuries which have been prevented by training because the injuries never happened. This discuession is about as useful as trying to quantify the number of wrecks, robberies, murders, etc. prevented by police patrols...you can't get data on things that never happened. Arguing that firearm training courses don't improve safety is asinine.

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by DocT65 View Post
    There is, in fact, data demonstrating the efficacy of firearms training. I can cite a few examples here:

    Prevention of Handgun Accidents Through Owner Training. Miller, et al., Dept. of Criminology, East TN State Univ. Int Q Community Health Educ. 1989 Jan.
    The authors examined 294 handgun owners over a five year period to determine the effectiveness of handgun training on accident reduction. The results were statistically significant and support the need for owner training.

    The Risk of Involuntary Firearms Discharge. Heim, et al., Universitat Frankfort, Institute of Sports Science. Hum Factors. 2006 Fall
    Dr. Heim utilized two experiments demonstrating that practice/training improved police aim while reducing involuntary gun discharges, supporting the effectiveness of such training on real-life situations.

    Reality-based Practice Under Pressure Improves Handgun Shooting Performance of Police Officers. Oudejans, RR. Research Institute MOVE, Univ of Amsterdam. Ergonomics. 2008 March.
    This study examined the utilization of reality based practice/training under pressure in preventing the degradation of handgun shooting performance in police officers. Data showed such training exercises acclimatized shooting performance of the subject officers.

    And, not to neglect the kiddies:

    Comparison of Two Programs to Teach Firearm Injury Prevention Skills to 6 and 7 year old Children. Gatheridge, et al., Dept. of Psychology, ND State Univ. Pediatrics. 2004, Sept.
    Dr. Gatheridge and 6 other colleages performed this study involving training of 6 & 7 year olds in preventing accidental firearm injuries. Using active learning approaches of modeling, rehearsal and feedback, they confirmed that this program was effective in teaching the desired safety skills to this research cohort of 45 children.

    Evaluation of Age-Appropriate Firearm Safety Interventions. Howard, PK. Dept. of Emergency Med, Univ of Kentucky Hosp. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2005, Jul.
    Dr. Howard’s study tested the effects of 3 levels of firearms safety training on school age children. In the group of 57, an 81% increase in knowledge was demonstrated with ongoing long term retention .

    The assertion comparing “trained CC holders to untrained” is essentially a mute point, as the study you describe would be essentially impossible to design and complete with any degree of scientific accuracy. In the absence of such “hard data”, as you describe, we must rely on available data in ascertaining the effectiveness of firearms training. I’ve offered some here, there is more in the scientific literature. The available data, coupled with the fact that there was no identified data to the contrary, infers that training is in fact effective, and given the stakes involved, should be required for those choosing to carry a firearm in public---concealed or open.
    Do any of those differentiate between what happens in the home/property and out in public? Because we're talking about for cc permits and protecting the public (from us!).
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  10. #70
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    Let me get this right. You think people should be allowed to carry a firearm on their person, with the sole purpose of possibly shooting and killing someone in self defense, yet they should not have to demonstrate their ability to safely handle a firearm, hit targets with reasonable accuracy, or demonstrate an understanding of laws and concerns surrounding self defense?
    Yes, that's exactly right.

    The Second Amendment does grant the right to keep and bear arms, but there are reasonable concerns that need to be addressed to balance personal safety and the safety of others. Free speech and assembly are guaranteed by the Constitution too, but there are still reasonable restrictions on those rights; you aren't free to verbally threaten people, you aren't free to write slanderous comments about people, and you have to get permits to conduct demonstrations. The same can, does, and should apply to the Second Amendment to prevent an uneducated and unskilled firearm owner from carrying in public. Rights have responsibilities attached to them and, unfortunately, Americans, as a whole, are extremely irresponsible and we have demonstrated that time and time again throughout history.
    All you have to do is to demonstrate a strong compelling interest the government has prior to denying all citizens their right to carry firearms. So for example in Texas only CHL holders are required to get the training. Not people that keep guns in their homes. Not people that carry handguns in their car. Not people that carry long guns, including assault weapons, in public. What is the compelling interest to only mandate the training for someone carries a firearm concealed? What is the compelling interest to mandate X number of hours of training, on X set of curriculum, along with X criteria for skills demonstration, as compared to for example handing out a business card with the basic safety rules and a print out of all applicable laws?

    That's all we're asking. Demonstrate the compelling interest. Demonstrate that training will cure that compelling interest, and demonstrate that what you're advocating does that in the least restrictive way possible.

  11. #71
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,679
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    It is an enigma to me how we put so much value on education for everything in this country, yet balk at the idea of mandatory education before carrying a firearm among the public.

    Additionally frustrating is the idea that somehow having a standard for this upsurps ones Constitutional right to the exercise thereof. Since having a CCW permit is already established, a more stringent and informative CCW class could be instituted and funded from the sale of confiscated property from drug busts or even drug money.

    Thinking outside the box is a little difficult, I know, but it would benefit all gun owners in the long haul. Because sooner or later, if we don't , the Goverment will, and we won't have a say.
    Property seizures by the government, mandates and an even larger bureaucracy are hardly thinking out of the box.
    The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see.
    Ayn Rand

  12. #72
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by DocT65 View Post
    There is, in fact, data demonstrating the efficacy of firearms training. I can cite a few examples here:

    Prevention of Handgun Accidents Through Owner Training. Miller, et al., Dept. of Criminology, East TN State Univ. Int Q Community Health Educ. 1989 Jan.
    The authors examined 294 handgun owners over a five year period to determine the effectiveness of handgun training on accident reduction. The results were statistically significant and support the need for owner training.

    The Risk of Involuntary Firearms Discharge. Heim, et al., Universitat Frankfort, Institute of Sports Science. Hum Factors. 2006 Fall
    Dr. Heim utilized two experiments demonstrating that practice/training improved police aim while reducing involuntary gun discharges, supporting the effectiveness of such training on real-life situations.

    Reality-based Practice Under Pressure Improves Handgun Shooting Performance of Police Officers. Oudejans, RR. Research Institute MOVE, Univ of Amsterdam. Ergonomics. 2008 March.
    This study examined the utilization of reality based practice/training under pressure in preventing the degradation of handgun shooting performance in police officers. Data showed such training exercises acclimatized shooting performance of the subject officers.

    And, not to neglect the kiddies:

    Comparison of Two Programs to Teach Firearm Injury Prevention Skills to 6 and 7 year old Children. Gatheridge, et al., Dept. of Psychology, ND State Univ. Pediatrics. 2004, Sept.
    Dr. Gatheridge and 6 other colleages performed this study involving training of 6 & 7 year olds in preventing accidental firearm injuries. Using active learning approaches of modeling, rehearsal and feedback, they confirmed that this program was effective in teaching the desired safety skills to this research cohort of 45 children.

    Evaluation of Age-Appropriate Firearm Safety Interventions. Howard, PK. Dept. of Emergency Med, Univ of Kentucky Hosp. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2005, Jul.
    Dr. Howard’s study tested the effects of 3 levels of firearms safety training on school age children. In the group of 57, an 81% increase in knowledge was demonstrated with ongoing long term retention .

    The assertion comparing “trained CC holders to untrained” is essentially a mute point, as the study you describe would be essentially impossible to design and complete with any degree of scientific accuracy. In the absence of such “hard data”, as you describe, we must rely on available data in ascertaining the effectiveness of firearms training. I’ve offered some here, there is more in the scientific literature. The available data, coupled with the fact that there was no identified data to the contrary, infers that training is in fact effective, and given the stakes involved, should be required for those choosing to carry a firearm in public---concealed or open.
    None of these studies you've referenced have anything to do with the training that is actually being mandated by numerous states now. Nor do they have any apparent relation to the OP. For example, the first study you referenced studied less than 300 people over five years to determine effectiveness of accident reduction. I would expect that with such a small sample size the accident rate without any training would be close to zero. With a sample size that already has a near zero accident rate how could you draw any factual conclusions as to the effectiveness of training?

  13. #73
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    Yes, that's exactly right.



    All you have to do is to demonstrate a strong compelling interest the government has prior to denying all citizens their right to carry firearms. So for example in Texas only CHL holders are required to get the training. Not people that keep guns in their homes. Not people that carry handguns in their car. Not people that carry long guns, including assault weapons, in public. What is the compelling interest to only mandate the training for someone carries a firearm concealed? What is the compelling interest to mandate X number of hours of training, on X set of curriculum, along with X criteria for skills demonstration, as compared to for example handing out a business card with the basic safety rules and a print out of all applicable laws?

    That's all we're asking. Demonstrate the compelling interest. Demonstrate that training will cure that compelling interest, and demonstrate that what you're advocating does that in the least restrictive way possible.
    I think anyone who carries any type of firearm should be trained on laws, safety, and self defense concerns and they should be able to demonstrate proficiency in their shooting skills. We require education, training, and licensing to hunt and fish, drive cars, fly planes, use boats, practice law and medicine, sell real estate, etc. Insurance companies give discounts for the completion of driver education courses. Good training works.

    What I want to prevent is an 80 year old woman who's never handled a gun before from buying a new .44 Magnum for her purse because her husband just died or a 21 year old kid from strapping a new 1911 to his belt because it's "cool" to open carry at Walmart. I want to prevent irresponsible people from carrying for the wrong reasons. I want people to take self defense seriously and I want them to understand the power and responsibility of carrying a firearm and taking someone's life. I don't expect people to train and shoot like a Navy Seal, but they should at least demonstrate that they understand self defense laws and that they can accurately put a box of ammo on target. If someone wants to own and carry a .50 BMG in their house without training then that's up to them...it may sound cold, but I don't care if they hurt themselves or their families. What I do care about is being in public with irresponsible gun owners who don't take carrying seriously.

    I don't think training is an end all be all, but I think giving up a weekend or two would deter people who want to carry for the wrong reasons and it would ensure that new gun owners know how to operate their firearm.

  14. #74
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    First, I would remove all the intentional crimes from that list...because training has absolutely nothing to do with the intent to commit a crime.
    Ah, and now we get somewhere. If you look at the TX data, there are several categories where the conviction
    rate is higher for the CHL holder then for the general public. These are convictions for gun law violations
    such as 51 and 30.06, carrying in a prohibited place and similar, intentional display that doesn't rise
    to the level of assault. In the past, before a law change, there were arrests for failure to show an officer your license.

    The training requirement is partly to keep the CHL holder from messing up on these particular laws. There is
    of course no control group because the general public not holding a CHL wouldn't be charged under some of
    these. They apply only to the license holder. There is also no way to compare these convictions with other states
    because there are way too many variations in state law; one place a bar is good, another it isn't. One place informing is required, another it isn't. If I recall correctly, carrying into a public roadside rest stop is forbidden in our
    neighbor to the North, but not here. Given all the variations on what is and isn't allowed, it is impossible
    to compare state to state, and of course for these gun specific matters it is also not possible to compare
    directly with the non-gun-carrying public.

    Common sense does however suggest that more people would mess up if they hadn't at least one time
    been shown the important points of law as given in the CHL Handbook.

    I don't have the DPS statistics in front of me, but last I looked there were also a couple of categories where
    the CHL holder was more likely than the general public to be convicted.

    Again, common sense would suggest that some basic education helps to reduce the number of incidents, even
    if that reduction can't be quantified. I mean, just look at how many out of staters get in trouble in one
    or the other of NY, NJ, Il, Maryland. All of it largely avoidable if there were a section on reciprocity
    and odd laws, though here at least there isn't one.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #75
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,662
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I try to stay away from the driving analogies but since it was brought up:how many states require you to do a drivers test or any other test when you have to renew your license? How many states now or in the future want you to "re-qualify" when you have to renew your CHL/CCP...
    I don't know about nowadays, but there was a time I was moving every year, and every state wanted at least
    a written test and some wanted a driver's test. It got to be a big nuisance. I even had to re-take a written
    test in one state I'd had a license in, moved from, then moved back to 2 years later.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

Page 5 of 36 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

powered by mybb advanced weapons

,
powered by mybb all movies
,

powered by mybb best exercise

,
powered by mybb code search
,

powered by mybb criminal law

,

powered by mybb free full movies online

,

powered by mybb free online training course

,

powered by mybb law and order

,

powered by mybb legal

,

powered by mybb paintball stuff

,
powered by mybb reference
,
powered by mybb video of potty training
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors