Better Carry for Licence w/Training to Purchase Firearms, would you?

[QuackXP]

If you could trade even better carry laws for having to have a licence with a training requirement no more difficult or costly than a drivers licence to purchase firearms would you?

Things that would be better for licences owners would be even better castle, and stand your ground laws, private business open to the public could not ban carry, protection from law enforcement harassment, etc.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Only if it was some sort of national carry where I could carry in every state, in federal buildings, etc. Almost like deputizing. The "benefits" you mentioned are either already being addressed in Harrisburg or violate personal property rights.

[Carnes]

Did somebody say, "Shall not be infringed?"

[andrewjs18]

Did somebody say, "Shall not be infringed?"

"..shall not be questioned." is easier to understand and doesn't leave any wiggle room for the anti-gunners.

[kadar]

I posted this in another thread last year.

Since this countries foundation, our 2A rights have been whittled away little by little and we have only seen an appeasement thrown our way to make it look like we gained something. It has always been 2 steps forward, one step back, against us. I don't call that a compromise.
If it was a true compromise it would not be a reduction of your rights for their false sense of security. What rights have the anti's given up in compromise?

So the answer is not no, but HELL NO.

[MOUNTAINORACLE]

If you could trade even better carry laws for having to have a licence with a training requirement no more difficult or costly than a drivers licence to purchase firearms would you?

The first ten Amendments to the US Constitution are the "Bill of Rights"

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What part of shall not be infringed is so hard to understand???

Why would anyone want to give up an absolute right & make it a privilege that can easily be governed by the states or feds??

[knight0334]

Its already bad enough you need a license to carry practically. I'll be the first to bitch if training was required. If reciprocity is the reasoning for training or other increased licensing requirement - then we don't need that state, let them change their laws.

I'd also be first in line to bitch about forcing private businesses that are open to the public from being prohibited from banning firearms. Property rights are the basis for ALL rights. Once you let the government controlling what you can do with your property it just opens the door for them to do other things. If a business doesn't want me to have a gun on their land - more power to them. I also have the power to spend or earn my money elsewhere.

No law will truly stop law enforcement harassment until any form of firearm regulation is gone, and even then some LEO's will still cite "safety" for continued harassment.

[QuackXP]

FYI I was just using some of the additional rights as examples and not necessary are all inclusive or needed.

What I was getting as is would you accept a licencee with training requirements to get perfect carry laws, whatever those may be to you.

[andrewjs18]

FYI I was just using some of the additional rights as examples and not necessary are all inclusive or needed.

What I was getting as is would you accept a licencee with training requirements to get perfect carry laws, whatever those may be to you.

we can fix the system by repealing ALL gun laws; that's what we call a free society.

[PaBimmerGuy]

I'd also be first in line to bitch about forcing private businesses that are open to the public from being prohibited from banning firearms.

business already have to let black and atheists in not to mention the handicapped. property rights have already done away. if a hindu wants to buy my house i have to sell to him.

businesses that are open to public foot traffic should be required to allow carry.