HB 1893 another chance at un-needed controls

[NineseveN]

P.S.S.

Brick (kudos for this and others posts BTW, I rep'd ya for it),

With all due respect to the wonderful job you've been doing in keeping track of these things, you might want to make the title of the next alert a little more attention grabbing if you think of it when you post it. Had I noticed the title of say, "Bill intorduces Mandatory Training for an LTCF in PA!", I might not have missed it. Not that my missig it was your fault at all Brick, it was all mine, but I'm getting old, sometimes I need a little help is all.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by billamj

While I understand where everyone is coming from on this one I still don't know how I feel about it. I mean at least they give viable definitions to work from.



On the one hand this would probably give us the opportunity to get states like Ohio and SC on the reciprocity list. On the other hand it does add another "means" test, even though virtually everyone on this board has taken one or more of the above.

Dude, you are brilliant! Seriously, there's a complaint/concern that this post was missed, and now you come in and get all controversial and stuff so that a fire is lit under it and we discuss the shit out of this thing, thereby keeping it on the top of the new posts list and getting attention. Awesome!

P.S. I think you're wrong, for every reason I stated in that other thread and in my letters to the PTB.

[ChamberedRound]

I've said this before: as much as I want PA to have reciprocity with other states, it shouldn't be at the cost of freedom. If that's the price then other states can keep their reciprocity, I don't want it.

IMHO, it's bad enough that we even have to apply for a LTCF, but to additionally require that someone take a course which typically costs at least $100 or more in addition to the application fees themselves is just plain wrong. Whether we want to admit it or not, I'm sure there are some people out there who wouldn't apply for a LTCF because they can't afford the training. This type of law creates a system whereby only those who can afford freedom are granted it, and I have to believe that is far from what the Founding Fathers envisioned their free society to be.

[billamj]

NineseveN
I'm still up in the air, I see good and bad so I'm not sure where I'm wrong but, OK.

CR
At least when I went through it, the Pa. Hunter's Safety Education course was free, the only thing that it cost was time. Now that was quite some time ago but I doubt that anyone is paying more than $20.00 for it today. I'm not even sure the NRA basic course costs that much in most places.

Now that I've said all that I don't like the addition of a training restriction but there could be a good side to it, that is all that I mean.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by billamj

CR
At least when I went through it, the Pa. Hunter's Safety Education course was free, the only thing that it cost was time. Now that was quite some time ago but I doubt that anyone is paying more than $20.00 for it today. I'm not even sure the NRA basic course costs that much in most places.

Now that I've said all that I don't like the addition of a training restriction but there could be a good side to it, that is all that I mean.

Fair enough. I missed the text about the Hunter Safety Course, although I still think the requirement, like the LTCF itself, is an infringement.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by billamj

NineseveN
I'm still up in the air, I see good and bad so I'm not sure where I'm wrong but, OK.

Um, no, you're wrong! Must...resist...urge...not...to...ar...arg....ague .

CR
At least when I went through it, the Pa. Hunter's Safety Education course was free, the only thing that it cost was time. Now that was quite some time ago but I doubt that anyone is paying more than $20.00 for it today. I'm not even sure the NRA basic course costs that much in most places.

Now that I've said all that I don't like the addition of a training restriction but there could be a good side to it, that is all that I mean.

I don't know of any model in any state where the training is free, everything has a cost, and even if I don’t pay for it with a check, I pay for it in taxes and power to the government. However, it really doesn't matter, no one has shown a true need for it, and unnecessary legislation is the bane of a free society. It aims at a problem that doesn't manifest itself in reality and thusly accomplishes nothing. None of this is taking into account that it's one more infringement on a right that should not be questioned. I don't agree with the permit itself in the first place, adding more requirements onto it is nonsensical IMHO.

[billamj]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

Fair enough. I missed the text about the Hunter Safety Course, although I still think the requirement, like the LTCF itself, is an infringement.

No arguement from me but the law is the law. Not that I like it at ALL but...

[Shawn.L]

Thanks for all the info and links, belonging to a site like this with so many active members is great for making political action so easy.

I just sent a letter to my rep.

[Zef_66]

Maybe I am reading it wrong, so correct me if I am. But it says that only non-renewal applicants have to have this course.

While I agree that it is an infringement of my right to bear arms, I just wanted to point this out.

[brewguy]

Originally Posted by Zef_66

Maybe I am reading it wrong, so correct me if I am. But it says that only non-renewal applicants have to have this course.

While I agree that it is an infringement of my right to bear arms, I just wanted to point this out.

I think what you are getting at is that it is a good thing to have training before you carry. I agree. The problem is when the state begins to require it.

You have a basic human right to defend yourself, the state should not be able to restrict that. They already to by requireing ltcf, we don't need any additional restrictions.

As Nineseven said, what are we gaining from this?