[EXCH54FE]

Of course, some gun owners might remind us that ‘shall not be infringed’ means exactly that, and requiring extensive training for one to exercise his/her right to keep and bear arms isn’t ideal progress.

Your thoughts?

[Graybeard58]

It’s nothing but a tax

[trebb]

Shouldn’t have to do anything to be able to carry or to insure “reciprocity” The Constitution already says we all have the God-given RIGHT to carry. Whenever the government gets involved, no matter the intentions, and concocts an ‘enhanced” deal, the “enhancement” is extra costs and hoops to jump through to obtain something that belongs to you already.

[thackney]

Due to it’s relatively lax issuance standards, Idaho’s concealed carry permit is only recognized by 11 other states.

Since the author got this basic fact wrong, what else is false in the article?

Reciprocity

These states recognize Idaho permits:
Alabama,
Alaska,
Arizona,
Arkansas,
Colorado,
Florida,
Georgia,
Indiana,
Iowa,
Kentucky,
Louisiana,
Michigan,
Missouri,
Montana,
Nebraska,
New Hampshire,
North Carolina,
North Dakota,
Ohio,
Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania,
South Dakota,
Tennessee,
Texas,
Utah,
Vermont,
Wisconsin,
Wyoming

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/idaho.aspx

[Domandred]

Its being marketed as a benefit for more reciprocity, and that the current extremely easy to get permit will still be available and not change.

My personal thought is that a few years down the road the current permit will go away deemed “redundant” or “unneeded”. Suddenly Idaho doesn’t have an easy to get shall issue permit and instead has a liberal State “you can have as permit but its going to cost you a lot of time and money”

So I’m actually against the idea cause I don’t even trust my government here in Idaho to not cheat us somehow.