Posted on 11/02/2010 2:55:59 AM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
We allow people to vote as granted in the Constitution without a permit and no training.
Voting can be far more dangerous to far more poeple then carrying a pistol! Just look at our current President...
I’d prefer the Arizona/VT/AK model.
If you can’t have that model, then I’ll say a background check is all that is required. The cost of the permit is $500/5 years. If you pass a training course in laws and shooting proficiency then the cost is discounted to Administrative only. In this case $115. The point is that it will encourage people to get training but I don’t believe the 2nd amendment mentioned any training requirements so it doesn’t specifically require it.
All this is better than the “may issue” of NJ. We may issue carry permits but you may issue a $50000 donation to the democrat of our choice or you may not get it. This why there are 1200CCW in a state of 9 million people.
But, if person feels the need for some initial training or even more advanced training, then they can go out and get it... Just like they can do right now.
According to the wording of the Constitution which must inform all our laws, it is an absolute right.
“You are putting other people in danger by ignorantly carrying a gun,” she said.
Yep, like your average gang banger.
This is none of their business. Guns are private property.
‘We allow people to vote as granted in the Constitution without a permit and no training.’
You have no federal right to vote, see Bush v. Gore.
Voting is a state right.
We allow people to vote as granted in the Constitution without a permit and no training. Voting can be far more dangerous to far more poeple then carrying a pistol! Just look at our current President...
Repeated over and over and over again, until people get it. Get it? I know you do!
The Constitution does not create a clause "if you know how to safely and properly carry a firearm."
We have a right to keep and BEAR arms.
These nitwits have it completely backwards.
We have a RIGHT to carry firearms unless we prove ourselves reckless and irresponsible by harming others or their property.
This nonsense is being spewed by those who have gone through the process of obtaining a permit and resent others not having to do that, which the Constitution says THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO. It's that simple.
Surprising that TN is leading the way here. Constitutional carry makes sense. While I personally think that training is a good thing, I don’t think it should be a requirement for exercise of a basic right. I think John Lott looked at the question and came to the conclusion that the required training didn’t make much of a difference from a macro perspective.
The big question is Arizona. VT has had Constitutional carry since the early 20th century and AK has had it for I guess about 5 years. Both states are thinly populated without any really large metropolitan areas. When AZ goes on it’s merry way without “blood running in the streets” for a couple of years, you’ll see other states adopt Constitutional carry.
Naaaaah!
It's truly heartening to see the debate now shifting to eliminating all unconstitutional abridgements of the right to keep and bear arms. We have come a long ways from the darkest days of the 1970s!
> The cost of the permit is $500/5 years.
That’s a lot of money. It would be enough to keep me from having a gun.
Paying even one cent is the same as paying a poll tax for the right to vote. I don’t see a difference.
Why? The TN that I have lived in all my life is very pro-gun/pro-2nd Amendment. Not as much as Vermont maybe but we would like to be.
“The cost of the permit is $500/5 years.”
I think it is terrible to place a $500 “poll tax” on carrying a piece of private property.
If they are forcing people to have “permits” to partake of what is admitted to be a right from God, and is supposedly acknowledged by America’s government of men, then charging for them is adding insult to injury.
I can’t wait to line up for the $500 permit on free speech.
I agree with you, FRiend. I do, however, agree with the young lady in the article concerning training. It should absolutely not be an impediment to carrying, but like driving a car, a boat, a motorcycle, or raising a child, a little bit of knowledge goes a long way.
Besides, putting the burden on the carrier is garbage. The old meme of “when guns are outlawed...” goes the same for training. Gangbangers are still going to carry without training, but the people are required to go through it?
“Why?”
TN has a rotten set of carry laws. Those laws are usually reflective of the underlying political reality. In TN you need a permit for OC, you need to be fingerprinted, the handgun permit is expensive, and you still have a lot of places where carry is not permitted. Such as parks, municipal buildings, etc. And there is no provision for nonresidents to obtain a permit.
“The TN that I have lived in all my life is very pro-gun/pro-2nd Amendment.”
Don’t get me wrong, I love TN. TN is better than some, but not as good as others on gun rights. I’d give TN a C+/B- on gun rights. Orders of magnitude better than CA, NJ, NY and IL. But not as good as AZ, AK, VT, VA or KY.
I’d be delighted to see TN jump to the head of the pack with Constitutional carry.
Like Vermont?
So, what is the overall experience in those states that have instituted “Vermont-style” carry. Accidents/crime up?? I seriously doubt it. I haven’t seen any studies on the point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.