Again, what’s the actual harm? Concretely, what bad things are likely to happen as a result? Will Louisiana ban guns for non-veterans? Will other rights be restricted to veterans?Originally Posted by mtnbkr
Or, will this make it more likely that violent crime will be interrupted by someone carrying concealed, while also showing that permitless carry doesn’t cause problems?
All-or-nothing positions are long on emotion and short on pragmatism.
I'm a veteran who actually shot handguns.
I think this is garbage. We don't need to create divided classes of our population. You shouldn't be giving out an enumerated, constitutional, God given right as a "recognition of service."
All this does is make those who care about pushing for true constitutional carry less in number, and create another divide. The right to arms and carry belongs to all.
I can't believe I mostly agree with Sanch. Wow. Not because of the training aspect, but because of the division aspect.
Having seen this play out in my time in KS, I wholeheartedly agree with the "incremental wins" thought.
When I started on the job in KS in the 80s nobody could carry a gun outside of hunting if they weren't a cop or on duty active military, even retired cops could not CCW. That led to some shady BS like people having "special deputy" cards from their friend the Sheriff.
Recall that in the frontier days extreme gun control was a thing being pushed by guys like Wyatt Earp (I enjoy the movies, but the historical truth of the man is ugly AF). There was also the idea that if you needed a gun there was time to go get one. In my state the gangster era stuff was off the chart. Bank robberies were extremely common, more so than in other states. (Trivia fact, the car Bonnie and Clyde were killed in was stolen from Topeka, I've seen the auto theft report in the archives at my old job)
LEOSA hit at some point in there, and retired cops could carry. No blood in the streets.
Then we got a restrictive CCH (handguns specifically, nothing else) license requirement going. That incrementally improved over the years from being easier to get, and fewer restrictions, to what it is now. Previously you couldn't carry in places like your unposted church, even with permission from the pastor/priest. Now things like that are gone. Carrying in a posted place used to be an arrest and loss of the CCH license, now it's a "you gotta leave" situation. No blood in the streets
Then there was a big deal about open carry. Wasn't legal in town. That was fought over and dropped. Then we got "Constitutional carry", concealed or open, but kept the KS CCH because we have reciprocity in so many states. Again no blood in the streets
In the mean time or prohibition on things like "sawed off shotguns", full autos, etc. was changed to match the federal laws. Previously even an LE agency could not legally have things like a silencer. No blood in the streets.
An all or nothing attitude normally means you get nothing.
I am the owner of Agile/Training and Consulting
www.agiletactical.com
If some gun rights people had been around on June 7th 1944, they'd say that the Normandy landings were a waste of time because the war was still going on.
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
I'm not everythng now, or nothing ever. I just don't see division as good.
Perhaps the cut of incrementalism is the way forward.
It's been noted that the anti-gun people have had some success with a long term strategy of incrementalism.
"You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
"I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI
Or Marijuana legalization. How many states jumped right to a free for all without going through medical marijuana or something similar. The more people who can, and do, engage in any given activity then the more that activity is normalized. The more normalized it is, the easier it is to broaden the support for further relaxation of restrictions. People still tend to actually like veterans, for now, making it an easier sell.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Have a look at locales where only LEOs and other special classes can get CC permits and actively work to block "regular" people from getting those same permits. This fosters an "us vs them" mentality that should not exist in a human right. We're not talking about privileges such as driving, but a God-given human right.
We have Constitutional Carry in 25 states. How many of those needed to start with limited groups before making it a state-wide right? This is a new precedent that could haunt us and wasn't necessary given the success we've had in half the country so far.
Chris
I’m with the other guys who think this is good because it’s an incremental step towards permítelas carry for everyone in the state. There are probably a TON of military veterans in LA. That’s going to be a TON of people eligible to CCW without a permit. People will see that it doesn’t result in the world ending and the towns being on fire. People won’t constantly be shooting each other over parking spaces at the local Walmart. Maybe next legislative session, permitless CCW for everyone becomes an easier sell to the governor.
My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.
Which of them jumped straight to constitutional carry?
As an LEO I didn't need a permit in my state. When I retire, I could get a free one.
Then everyone got access to a free one.
Now nobody needs one AND can get the free one for reciprocity, etc.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Reply With Quote