We allow people to vote as granted in the Constitution without a permit and no training.
Voting can be far more dangerous to far more poeple then carrying a pistol! Just look at our current President...
I’d prefer the Arizona/VT/AK model.
If you can’t have that model, then I’ll say a background check is all that is required. The cost of the permit is $500/5 years. If you pass a training course in laws and shooting proficiency then the cost is discounted to Administrative only. In this case $115. The point is that it will encourage people to get training but I don’t believe the 2nd amendment mentioned any training requirements so it doesn’t specifically require it.
All this is better than the “may issue” of NJ. We may issue carry permits but you may issue a $50000 donation to the democrat of our choice or you may not get it. This why there are 1200CCW in a state of 9 million people.
But, if person feels the need for some initial training or even more advanced training, then they can go out and get it... Just like they can do right now.
According to the wording of the Constitution which must inform all our laws, it is an absolute right.
“You are putting other people in danger by ignorantly carrying a gun,” she said.
Yep, like your average gang banger.
This is none of their business. Guns are private property.
The Constitution does not create a clause "if you know how to safely and properly carry a firearm."
We have a right to keep and BEAR arms.
These nitwits have it completely backwards.
We have a RIGHT to carry firearms unless we prove ourselves reckless and irresponsible by harming others or their property.
This nonsense is being spewed by those who have gone through the process of obtaining a permit and resent others not having to do that, which the Constitution says THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO. It's that simple.
Surprising that TN is leading the way here. Constitutional carry makes sense. While I personally think that training is a good thing, I don’t think it should be a requirement for exercise of a basic right. I think John Lott looked at the question and came to the conclusion that the required training didn’t make much of a difference from a macro perspective.
The big question is Arizona. VT has had Constitutional carry since the early 20th century and AK has had it for I guess about 5 years. Both states are thinly populated without any really large metropolitan areas. When AZ goes on it’s merry way without “blood running in the streets” for a couple of years, you’ll see other states adopt Constitutional carry.
Naaaaah!
It's truly heartening to see the debate now shifting to eliminating all unconstitutional abridgements of the right to keep and bear arms. We have come a long ways from the darkest days of the 1970s!
Like Vermont?
So, what is the overall experience in those states that have instituted “Vermont-style” carry. Accidents/crime up?? I seriously doubt it. I haven’t seen any studies on the point.
Prefer some training requirements, as I have seen some scary new gun owners on the range. But with rights comes risks.
“Shall Issue” is a fair enough compromise. Knowing that a person can safely carry and maintain, and ultimately use a firearm is a minimum standard of safety where the public is concerned.
VOTE YES on the hunting & fishing amendment! Don’t let the chip away at our gun rights!
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785]
Would any one else like to bet that the vast majority of those 200 were justifiable homicides?