[FreedomCalls]

To expand a bit on what I said, if you allow armed LEOs in past the 30.06 sign, then you are acknowledging that the problem is not the weapon itself, but the background, training, and intent of the person carrying it. Requiring a CHL insures that the person carrying has a clean background, has undergone proper training in both the law and safety, and intends on only using it in dire circumstnaces — much the same as an LEO.

[dayglored]

> To expand a bit on what I said, if you allow armed LEOs in past the 30.06 sign, then you are acknowledging that the problem is not the weapon itself, but the background, training, and intent of the person carrying it.

Well, right. The problem is NEVER the weapon itself. (That's the liberal's point of view, that guns are evil, etc.).

Constitutional rights, and responsibilities, attach to the person, not the object.