Constitutional Carry!

[emapples]

Boycotting isn't always an option.

Most folks have to go to the Post Office or Courthouse occasionally, or to a school/college if they have kids.

Just a thought.

Then your are saying you except certain limitations to the 2nd ammendmant? (THIS IS WHAT IS ALWAYS THROWN IN MY FACE HERE)

 

[kwaynem]

I think what emapples is saying is there are a lot of people shouldn’t be carrying a firearm because of temper issues or the ability to justify using a firearm I am for everyone being able to exercise there 2A right but I know some that if I seen carrying I would definitely stay away from

 

[MacFromOK]

Then your are saying you except certain limitations to the 2nd ammendmant? (THIS IS WHAT IS ALWAYS THROWN IN MY FACE HERE)

I'm sayin' I ain't goin' to jail for a roll of stamps.

Sometimes we have to pick our battles.

 

[Fyrtwuck]

When I retired, I was issued a LE retired CC permit by CLEET. I went through the required permit process that everyone else went through because I wanted to see what the class was like and what was taught so I could compare it with what I had learned in the academy and since then with the updates we received with yearly training.

I was VERY disappointed. The instructor spent the whole class reading the text of the law word for word from the OSBI manual. Some “what if” questions were asked by the class and the answer was always “you need to ask an attorney”.

The test was entirely on firearms safety, yet nothing was taught about safe handling of firearms. A review of the test was given before the test was given.

The qualification course was a joke. A total of fifty rounds were fired from three and seven yards on a full size silhouette human shaped target. No time limit or scoring whatsoever. When I stepped back and looked at the other targets there were many who had only three or four hits on the whole target.

I don’t see the question about carrying guns with no training and no permits having any merit. As far as I am concerned, they don’t have any training under the current system now.

The current system as I see it simply provides applicants with the “current” wording of the law and no minimum standards for qualifications. As we know, laws change every year. No updates are provided or offered. If you want to be updated you have to get it on your own. If you want more training, get it on your own. No encouragement for additional training or legal updates.

The current system is a money maker for the state. Minimum training that is not paid for by the state. Just enough to say that the permit carriers have received training. Fees to the state from the instructors to be “State Certified Instructors”. Fees to the state from applicants.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

^^^^^Agree. Under the current system, you can probably receive the same level of training at the sales counter at your local Academy store.

 

[kwaynem]

^^^^^Agree. Under the current system, you can probably receive the same level of training at the sales counter at your local Academy store.

I agree but there is the background check

 

[DavidMcmillan]

The background check doesn't go away. And sales not subject to the check will continue. The process of obtaining any firearm will not change, for the good guy or for the bad guy.

 

[chuter]

The current required training is supposed to make sure people are familiar with the law, and that they can handle a firearm safely.
There is no accuracy requirement. The written test is about safety.
The instructor should be the one who keeps people who can't handle a gun safely from getting a license, but it doesn't work that way.
I sat in on a class where the instructor and the participants just wanted to get it done and go home. The instructor was not watching people closely (several shooters at once) when they did the shooting part and wouldn't have known if they were handling it safely or not.

 

[kwaynem]

I’m all for it but like I said some people shouldn’t have one and then again I work with a guy that has a permit and I have seen him do stuff that made me shake my head

 

[DavidMcmillan]

This really flies against our basic stance here, but it is a reality that at some point must be considered. There are truly some people that should not have access to firearms. Virtually every mass shooting incident that occurs involves people that fall into that category. The guy here in OKC last year at Louie's is one that should have been identified earlier, for example. So far, we haven't figured out how to correctly identify these folks nor do we have a viable method of insuring that they do not have access to firearms, or any other method of carrying out their distorted ideas.

I just have questions, no answers!