Case in point

[isa268]

I support lowering the restrictions on CHL.

VT and AK both have licenses-less open carry. and other states have lower resrtictions then us and they don't have a problem. in many states you do just walk in to the Sherifs office pay a fee do a background check and get a license in a week or two.

in Virgina you can carry in a bar as long as you open carry.

and none of these states have problems.

[anygunanywhere]

I support lowering the restrictions on CHL.

VT and AK both have licenses-less open carry. and other states have lower resrtictions then us and they don't have a problem. in many states you do just walk in to the Sherifs office pay a fee do a background check and get a license in a week or two.

in Virgina you can carry in a bar as long as you open carry.

and none of these states have problems.

In Pennsylvania you can drink in a bar and open carry.

Anygunanywhere

[dehalter]

Maybe I would like to see you have "training" and a license in order to exercise your freedom of speech.

Speech cannot kill someone. Not a fair comparison. Although they are both rights given to us under the same document, CHL is a different animal. Along with having a CHL we take on a massive responsibility.

I could NEVER support giving a license without a background check. Then you run the risk of letting convicted felons carry, even if only for 30-60 days. Bad Idea IMO.

I would support lower fees definitely, but someone has to be paid to process the applications ect. I also would like to see more training made readily available. Not as a requirement, but definitely some courses that get more into tactical training, crisis management/tactics. Stuff more along the lines of Police officer training

---------------------------------------------------------

ScrapMetal, I have to respectfully disagree. I like the the idea on no permit. Why should I have to pay a TAX to exercise my God given right to defend myself? Criminals do not obey the law by definition. If you use a gun (and criminals do) in a crime, you get extra punishment (death by hanging for example).

Convicted felons do carry (hang or juice them as well).

In addition, I do not like the Feds, or any government entity nosing in my business. I have committed no crime. Please make them leave me alone.

No fee, no tax and do not let the government take your guns. Simple.

[Purplehood]

ScrapMetal, I have to respectfully disagree. I like the the idea on no permit. Why should I have to pay a TAX to exercise my God given right to defend myself? Criminals do not obey the law by definition. If you use a gun (and criminals do) in a crime, you get extra punishment (death by hanging for example).

Taking this statement literally, it makes sense. Too bad the ACLU isn't going to stand up for our rights on this one.

[dehalter]

Re: Case in point
by Purplehood on Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:35 am

ScrapMetal, I have to respectfully disagree. I like the the idea on no permit. Why should I have to pay a TAX to exercise my God given right to defend myself? Criminals do not obey the law by definition. If you use a gun (and criminals do) in a crime, you get extra punishment (death by hanging for example).


Taking this statement literally, it makes sense. Too bad the ACLU isn't going to stand up for our rights on this one.

======================================================

If the ACLU was a true civil liberties union, they would defend the 2A!!!