This is a discussion on More stringent Qualification for Permits within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by retsupt99 What the gov gives...the gov can take away, in a heartbeat. Carefull what you ask for... ----------------------------------------------- To the OP... I ...
We have more restrictions now than the constitution allows. Why would we want more?
For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27
Nearly all government policies have the exact opposite effect of their stated intent. Prohibition, TARP, DARE, The Federal Reserve, gun laws, welfare, etc.
There should be no qualifications for a weapon permit. There should, in fact, be no permits. If you want to carry a gun, you should be able to go buy one or 1,000, right this minute, with no background check, waiting period, or taxes. You should be able to buy any kind of gun, with any kind of ammo, with any type of action (semi-, full-, etc...). You should be able to carry that weapon in any manner you choose, whether open, concealed, strapped across your back, or mounted in the bed of your pickup.
It is only when a person commits an actual aggression (or threat thereof) against the person or property of another that he should face any "law" of any kind covering any subject.
If we just have to make something more stringent, let's get more stringent standards for elected officials. Or, you know, any standards at all.
I'll agree it should be a family not government problem. However, even in a state that requires nothing more than an application, I can't believe that a person who is senile or in some other way a public danger MUST be issued a permit.
If you really believe that anyone is that bad you can report it to the issuing authority. They could investigate the report and if they agree revoke the permit.
No doubt you will really be the bad guy after that but you will make the world a safer place.
Having said that, I believe it is reasonable to have to demonstrate knowledge of the traffic laws and customs before driving on public roads because that is a cooperative endeavor. Ignorance of the rules of the road makes you a clear and present danger to the other drivers. If we didn't all follow the same rules on the road, chaos would ensue.
Competance at operating the vehicle is also a reasonable requirement because cooperatively operating 2-ton machines on narrow strips of concrete, asphalt, etc. is inherently dangerous and must be done safely. If you don't know how to operate the machine, you are a danger to others on the road.
Personally I don't think carrying a firearm rises to this level, but I can see why some people believe that competance with firearms and knowledge of the lawful use force should be demonstrated by those who wish to do so in a public space. Especially in an urban area.
Sure, use the roads...just obey the laws while doing so. Laws apply to those roads....and they are laws that have nothing to do with any particular right. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You can walk on the edge. If allowed, ride your horse. When in a bus, you are using that road.
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)
"Whistle blowing," hm? What critical situation?
Now, if in a given situation a specific person is a an actual threat to himself and others (not merely claimed to be so), then I can see others taking over for his safety and security. But until then, I don't see how ratcheting down the screws in terms of training, requirements and other hurdles will improve safety. It's an individual thing. It's relatively rare that folks "accidentally" or otherwise unintentionally shoot others or harm themselves. It seems a huge leap to suggest that legislation is required in order to apply to everyone, merely to address what is an infinitesimally small percentage of people and situations.
The fifth amendment says:
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty (as in freedom to move about as one desires, including driving a car), or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
and the ninth amandment says:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Such as the right to drive a car.
As many people have noted a car is at least as deadly as a gun, so why shouldn't there be at least some requirement to demonstrate safe operation?
S&W M&P40/M&P9c OC rigs
S&W 640-1 or Sig P238 as a CC rig
proud www.georgiacarry.org member
Second Amendment Foundation Life member
senile 80 year olds have the same rights to protect themselves as you.
Vermont does not issue Permit/Licenses to Carry a Concealed firearm. Vermont allows anyone
who can legally own a firearm to carry it concealed without a permit of any kind.