How do you Feel About Handgun Restrictions?

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Scar270

I sent a nasty letter to Mr. Oberle about the poor quality of the responses we got under Mr. Knight,.

Not sure that's starting the new relationship out on the right foot Scar. honey over vinegar...

[fear 666]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

No, it's boring because I shot countless thousands of rounds over many years. I did shoot at a farm, ex buddy had handguns and we shot constantly. If you think that people don't shoot handguns at their country homes, you are very mistaken. I had an uncle that rode around his place with a 22 in his pocket while mowing the grass

I know plenty of people in BC who have handguns and shoot them where ever they want as well (camping in the mountains and stuff). I'm sure you can admit to me shooting them on your friends farm was more fun the the shooting at the range right. You can be honest.

[Scar270]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Not sure that's starting the new relationship out on the right foot Scar. honey over vinegar...

True enough, I did explain that I realized he wasn't the head then, and not responsible for it, but displayed my displeasure with it, and how I hoped things would change under him. It wasn't a nice letter, but I wasn't nasty to him in it.

Actually from talking to some of the AFGA exec it sounds like Oberle will be much better to deal with then Knight was.

[858king]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

The more CCW holders in a state the lower the crime rate. Your logic is totally flawed, do a bit of research and check back with us.

Hillbilly:

PAL background checks don't take into account drug use, only drug infractions. Got a grip.

States that allow concealed carry may have a lower crime rate, but all that proves is that legal concealed carry does not necessarily raise crime; it can in no way be stated that it reduces crime from the evidence you've laid out (what would be more helpful would be an overall view of demographics, widely held values/religions, labour statistics, drug production and smuggling, and organized crime activity). In Mexico, concealed carry is illegal yet it happens all the time and look at their crime rate. Are you saying that the solution to, for instance, Mexico's crime would be Arizona's gun laws? Because it could be very easily stated that a huge component of Mexico's crime IS Arizona's gun laws using guns flowing back past the border.

In other words, more guns does not equal less crime, it effectively equals whatever the dominant societal force in the area wants it to be. Otherwise, the military would have no need for prisons because, by carrying guns, sainthood would be universal. Likewise, Mexico would be a haven of peace and tranquillity.

Among members of this forum, greater pistol usage would probably not mean more crime. But I bet it would mean more theft of pistols by people outside this forum, and I bet it would mean more crime using pistols by people outside this forum.

Again, it has very little to do with us as gun owners and everything to do with the population at large.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by 858king

Hillbilly:

PAL background checks don't take into account drug use, only drug infractions. Got a grip.

States that allow concealed carry may have a lower crime rate, but all that proves is that legal concealed carry does not necessarily raise crime; it can in no way be stated that it reduces crime from the evidence you've laid out (what would be more helpful would be an overall view of demographics, widely held values/religions, labour statistics, drug production and smuggling, and organized crime activity). In Mexico, concealed carry is illegal yet it happens all the time and look at their crime rate. Are you saying that the solution to, for instance, Mexico's crime would be Arizona's gun laws? Because it could be very easily stated that a huge component of Mexico's crime IS Arizona's gun laws using guns flowing back past the border.

In other words, more guns does not equal less crime, it effectively equals whatever the dominant societal force in the area wants it to be. Otherwise, the military would have no need for prisons because, by carrying guns, sainthood would be universal. Likewise, Mexico would be a haven of peace and tranquillity.

Among members of this forum, greater pistol usage would probably not mean more crime. But I bet it would mean more theft of pistols by people outside this forum, and I bet it would mean more crime using pistols by people outside this forum.

Again, it has very little to do with us as gun owners and everything to do with the population at large.

Having a drivers license does not prevent drunk driving, or speeding. If you haven't been convicted of a crime you are assumed innocent in this country. There will always be a few turds that cause trouble but for the most part 33 million Canadians are good people.

From:http://www.concealedcampus.org/pdf/ccw_gun_facts.pdf

1. In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second153. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.

2. More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws.

3. States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages

4.The general public is:
• 5.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent offenses than CCW permit holders.
• 13.5 times more likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the than CCW permit holders

5. Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm (I add, that is lower than the rate for most police forces.)

6.In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator as by a person with a concealed carry permit

Those are just a few highlights, read for yourself.

Comparing Mexico to Canada is ridiculous. Mexico is run by the drug cartels, from the street sweeper to the President. There is basically nothing that corruption in their government doesn't influence. The cure for Mexico's trouble is to get rid of the corruption in the government and then allow for laws like Arizona's to be implemented, to help keep the turd rats our of power in the future. The corruption is so entrenched that I have no idea where to start cleaning it up short of revolution. No I'm not advocating for revolution in Mexico.

A huge part of Mexico's gun problem is the Obama administration led by Eric Holder setting up schemes to supply Mexican cartels with firearms. The outcome of the Fast and Furious investigation is going to be interesting. The rest of the guns are mostly stolen property, traded for drugs. Once again it is criminals creating the problems not the law abiding CCW holders.

[Hun-Ter]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

Having a drivers license does not prevent drunk driving, or speeding. If you haven't been convicted of a crime you are assumed innocent in this country. There will always be a few turds that cause trouble but for the most part 33 million Canadians are good people.

From:http://www.concealedcampus.org/pdf/ccw_gun_facts.pdf

1. In Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second153. Assaults fell 250% faster in the second year.

2. More to the point, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws.

3. States that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages

4.The general public is:
• 5.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent offenses than CCW permit holders.
• 13.5 times more likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the than CCW permit holders

5. Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm (I add, that is lower than the rate for most police forces.)

6.In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator as by a person with a concealed carry permit

Those are just a few highlights, read for yourself.

Comparing Mexico to Canada is ridiculous. Mexico is run by the drug cartels, from the street sweeper to the President. There is basically nothing that corruption in their government doesn't influence. The cure for Mexico's trouble is to get rid of the corruption in the government and then allow for laws like Arizona's to be implemented, to help keep the turd rats our of power in the future. The corruption is so entrenched that I have no idea where to start cleaning it up short of revolution. No I'm not advocating for revolution in Mexico.

A huge part of Mexico's gun problem is the Obama administration led by Eric Holder setting up schemes to supply Mexican cartels with firearms. The outcome of the Fast and Furious investigation is going to be interesting. The rest of the guns are mostly stolen property, traded for drugs. Once again it is criminals creating the problems not the law abiding CCW holders.

Great post!

[858king]

Good post for sure.

The question then is: who commissioned the study you quote? That would have a huge factor in the credibility of the information.

Does the method adjust for violent crime that occurs outside of the auspices of organized crime (random stuff)?

Does it account for other laws or significant events occurring during the same period as the gun laws mentioned were enacted?

It also mentions numbers such as "fell 500% faster than the national average" etc, which sounds great except without the numbers backing the claim, it's virtually meaningless. (National average may be .01 and the states with carry laws may be .06, which is a 500% faster drop but not of any real significance. Likewise, in order to adjust properly, I believe that states with carry laws can not be averaged in combination with states without, if the question needing answering is in fact the one described above, because it would taint the result -- the only real comps are states with and without, not states with vs national average.)

It also does not make sense to base studies on states in aggregate, because rural and urban typically have a massive divide in this type of thing; if a state has a large rural population, it would massively change the result of the study. Case in point Washinton DC: it is solely urban, and with it, the violent crime is a lot higher. Washington DC simply does not work as a comparative factor unless a study is willing to compare urban to urban across the map. State to state is flawed.

Mexican gangs regularly go to gun shows in Arizona to purchase firearms.

Was not comparing Mexico to Canada, just holding up that gun laws are part of an aggregate society and not necessarily a single deciding factor. I would suspect that DC's violence has more to do with narcotic usage then anything, and I'd wonder whether or not the crime rate has fallen in recent years.

[greylynx]

Originally Posted by 858king

Good post for sure.

The question then is: who commissioned the study you quote? That would have a huge factor in the credibility of the information.

Does the method adjust for violent crime that occurs outside of the auspices of organized crime (random stuff)?

Does it account for other laws or significant events occurring during the same period as the gun laws mentioned were enacted?

It also mentions numbers such as "fell 500% faster than the national average" etc, which sounds great except without the numbers backing the claim, it's virtually meaningless. (National average may be .01 and the states with carry laws may be .06, which is a 500% faster drop but not of any real significance. Likewise, in order to adjust properly, I believe that states with carry laws can not be averaged in combination with states without, if the question needing answering is in fact the one described above, because it would taint the result -- the only real comps are states with and without, not states with vs national average.)

It also does not make sense to base studies on states in aggregate, because rural and urban typically have a massive divide in this type of thing; if a state has a large rural population, it would massively change the result of the study. Case in point Washinton DC: it is solely urban, and with it, the violent crime is a lot higher. Washington DC simply does not work as a comparative factor unless a study is willing to compare urban to urban across the map. State to state is flawed.

Mexican gangs regularly go to gun shows in Arizona to purchase firearms.

Was not comparing Mexico to Canada, just holding up that gun laws are part of an aggregate society and not necessarily a single deciding factor. I would suspect that DC's violence has more to do with narcotic usage then anything, and I'd wonder whether or not the crime rate has fallen in recent years.

You can ask all the questions you want about the reliabilty and validity of the study. My question is where are the rabid anti gun democrats to show that this study is garbage. I am waiting.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by 858king

Good post for sure.

The question then is: who commissioned the study you quote? That would have a huge factor in the credibility of the information.

Does the method adjust for violent crime that occurs outside of the auspices of organized crime (random stuff)?

Does it account for other laws or significant events occurring during the same period as the gun laws mentioned were enacted?

It also mentions numbers such as "fell 500% faster than the national average" etc, which sounds great except without the numbers backing the claim, it's virtually meaningless. (National average may be .01 and the states with carry laws may be .06, which is a 500% faster drop but not of any real significance.
Likewise, in order to adjust properly, I believe that states with carry laws can not be averaged in combination with states without, if the question needing answering is in fact the one described above, because it would taint the result -- the only real comps are states with and without, not states with vs national average.)

It also does not make sense to base studies on states in aggregate, because rural and urban typically have a massive divide in this type of thing; if a state has a large rural population, it would massively change the result of the study. Case in point Washinton DC: it is solely urban, and with it, the violent crime is a
lot higher. Washington DC simply does not work as a comparative factor unless a study is willing to compare urban to urban across the map. State to state is flawed.

Mexican gangs regularly go to gun shows in Arizona to purchase firearms.

Was not comparing Mexico to Canada, just holding up that gun laws are part of
an aggregate society and not necessarily a single deciding factor. I would suspect that DC's violence has more to do with narcotic usage then anything, and I'd wonder whether or not the crime rate has fallen in recent years.

Here is an idea, why don't you post some numbers up and I will refute them with words. Why back up your point when you can just spout a bunch of non verified crap to be the gospel.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by 858king

Good post for sure.

The question then is: who commissioned the study you quote? That would have a huge factor in the credibility of the information.

That essay was written siting facts and figures from a variety of sources, they are all footnoted. In fact a bunch of the footnote numbers appear in my post.

Does the method adjust for violent crime that occurs outside of the auspices of organized crime (random stuff)?

The only crime that matters is the random stuff? Why wouldn't organized crime be included in a general crime study? I really don't care about ***** rats killing other ***** rats, saves us all money.

Does it account for other laws or significant events occurring during the same period as the gun laws mentioned were enacted? i don't know it's your turn to come up with something quantifiable

It also mentions numbers such as "fell 500% faster than the national average" etc, which sounds great except without the numbers backing the claim, it's virtually meaningless. (National average may be .01 and the states with carry
laws may be .06, which is a 500% faster drop but not of any real significance. Likewise, in order to adjust properly, I believe that states with carry laws can not be averaged in combination with states without, if the question needing answering is in fact the one described above, because it would taint the result -- the only real comps are states with and without, not states with vs national average.)

I cited a link to the article go read it, follow the footnotes
It also does not make sense to base studies on states in aggregate, because rural and urban typically have a massive divide in this type of thing; if a state has a large rural population, it would massively change the result of the study. Case in point Washinton DC: it is solely urban, and with it, the violent crime is a lot higher. Washington DC simply does not work as a comparative factor unless a study is willing to compare urban to urban across the map. State to state is
flawed.
Ok look up Miami and Washington DC stats and see what presents itself.

Mexican gangs regularly go to gun shows in Arizona to purchase firearms.
Or Holder and Obama buy then and give them to the Mexicans. Let's have some proof of your argument
Was not comparing Mexico to Canada, just holding up that gun laws are part of an aggregate society and not necessarily a single deciding factor. I would suspect that DC's violence has more to do with narcotic usage then anything, and I'd wonder whether or not the crime rate has fallen in recent years.

Instead of "wondering" look it up and post it. Then we can debate it.

[Arn?Narn.]

I always enjoy seeing comments on such things, by people who (or at least appear to) have an understanding of research and critique.
Good on ya !

Originally Posted by 858king

Good post for sure.

The question then is: who commissioned the study you quote? That would have a huge factor in the credibility of the information.

Does the method adjust for violent crime that occurs outside of the auspices of organized crime (random stuff)?

Does it account for other laws or significant events occurring during the same period as the gun laws mentioned were enacted?

It also mentions numbers such as "fell 500% faster than the national average" etc, which sounds great except without the numbers backing the claim, it's virtually meaningless. (National average may be .01 and the states with carry laws may be .06, which is a 500% faster drop but not of any real significance. Likewise, in order to adjust properly, I believe that states with carry laws can not be averaged in combination with states without, if the question needing answering is in fact the one described above, because it would taint the result -- the only real comps are states with and without, not states with vs national average.)

It also does not make sense to base studies on states in aggregate, because rural and urban typically have a massive divide in this type of thing; if a state has a large rural population, it would massively change the result of the study. Case in point Washinton DC: it is solely urban, and with it, the violent crime is a lot higher. Washington DC simply does not work as a comparative factor unless a study is willing to compare urban to urban across the map. State to state is flawed.

Mexican gangs regularly go to gun shows in Arizona to purchase firearms.

Was not comparing Mexico to Canada, just holding up that gun laws are part of an aggregate society and not necessarily a single deciding factor. I would suspect that DC's violence has more to do with narcotic usage then anything, and I'd wonder whether or not the crime rate has fallen in recent years.

[Camp Cook]

WOW some of you guys are really out to anti lunch when it comes to your take on handguns...

Me I totally support remote wilderness are open/CCW handgun carry for defense & hunting and CCW anywhere.

Just over 9 years ago I received my first of 4 remote area handgun carry permits started carrying a Colt Delta Elite 10mm then a Glock 20 10mm then 2 Ruger Bisley Vaquero's in 45 Colt a S&W 629 in 44mag and the last 2 years of my permits two Ruger Super Redhawks in 454 Casull.

My permits were good for 7 years all together and covered me for all remote wilderness areas of BC and the last 2 years of my permits I was also covered for all remote wilderness areas of Alberta as well this was while I worked as a self-employed freeminer (prospector)...

Only reason I let it expire is I took the last 2 + years off to stay home with my now 4 1/2 year old son I will be renewing my permit in Jan or feb of next year for all of BC again.

At one time I was legally allowed to transport 6 handguns to my remote area camps could only carry one at a time though.

So for those of you that are spewing against handgun carry get your heads out of your *sses you obviously do not have a fre*king clue about the reality of handgun carry I'm figuring you have no experiences handguns and have sucked in all of the emotional anti spewing that you have been exposed too.

[guywiththemule]

Originally Posted by Camp Cook

WOW some of you guys are really out to anti lunch when it comes to your take on handguns...

Me I totally support remote wilderness are open/CCW handgun carry for defense & hunting and CCW anywhere.

Just over 9 years ago I received my first of 4 remote area handgun carry permits started carrying a Colt Delta Elite 10mm then a Glock 20 10mm then 2 Ruger Bisley Vaquero's in 45 Colt a S&W 629 in 44mag and the last 2 years of my permits two Ruger Super Redhawks in 454 Casull.

My permits were good for 7 years all together and covered me for all remote wilderness areas of BC and the last 2 years of my permits I was also covered for all remote wilderness areas of Alberta as well this was while I worked as a self-employed freeminer (prospector)...

Only reason I let it expire is I took the last 2 + years off to stay home with my now 4 1/2 year old son I will be renewing my permit in Jan or feb of next year for all of BC again.

At one time I was legally allowed to transport 6 handguns to my remote area camps could only carry one at a time though.

So for those of you that are spewing against handgun carry get your heads out of your *sses you obviously do not have a fre*king clue about the reality of handgun carry I'm figuring you have no experiences handguns and have sucked in all of the emotional anti spewing that you have been exposed too.

Excellent post by a real outdoorsman !!!! The anti`s have been brain-washed for a lot of years. ( Oh my god, we don`t want to end up like the States propaganda bull excretment)

[Camp Cook]

Here is a recent reason why people should be legally allowed to pack a handgun in the bush.

WOW a grandmother packing a handgun for defense... how can that be allowed...

Hunter Becomes The Hunted In Idaho Wolf Attack

A North Idaho grandmother considers herself lucky to be alive after she was able to shoot and kill a wolf as it tried to attack her on a recent hunting trip.

http://lcvalley.kxly.com/news/news/6...ho-wolf-attack

[280Hunter]

Originally Posted by Camp Cook

WOW some of you guys are really out to anti lunch when it comes to your take on handguns...

Me I totally support remote wilderness are open/CCW handgun carry for defense & hunting and CCW anywhere.

Just over 9 years ago I received my first of 4 remote area handgun carry permits started carrying a Colt Delta Elite 10mm then a Glock 20 10mm then 2 Ruger Bisley Vaquero's in 45 Colt a S&W 629 in 44mag and the last 2 years of my permits two Ruger Super Redhawks in 454 Casull.

My permits were good for 7 years all together and covered me for all remote wilderness areas of BC and the last 2 years of my permits I was also covered for all remote wilderness areas of Alberta as well this was while I worked as a self-employed freeminer (prospector)...

Only reason I let it expire is I took the last 2 + years off to stay home with my now 4 1/2 year old son I will be renewing my permit in Jan or feb of next year for all of BC again.

At one time I was legally allowed to transport 6 handguns to my remote area camps could only carry one at a time though.

So for those of you that are spewing against handgun carry get your heads out of your *sses you obviously do not have a fre*king clue about the reality of handgun carry I'm figuring you have no experiences handguns and have sucked in all of the emotional anti spewing that you have been exposed too.

What is considered a remote carry area in Alberta?

[Camp Cook]

Remote wilderness area that is uninhabited it can be on private property or crown land.

[ELKOHOLICS]

It seems to me that any where a non restricted gun is allowed so should a hand gun .but the laws pertaining to offenses committed with a legal hand gun should be ten years no exceptions , the one time we should be allowed is the defense of our family in our own home, we need a castle law in Canada in general legal gun owners are getting the shaft .when penalties for criminals are a freaking joke, guns in criminals hands are not registered they should pay the price not us

[Camp Cook]

Originally Posted by ELKOHOLICS

It seems to me that any where a non restricted gun is allowed so should a hand gun .but the laws pertaining to offenses committed with a legal hand gun should be ten years no exceptions , the one time we should be allowed is the defense of our family in our own home, we need a castle law in Canada in general legal gun owners are getting the shaft .when penalties for criminals are a freaking joke, guns in criminals hands are not registered they should pay the price not us

Why?

Shouldn't the penalties be exactly the same as with a long gun?

Is a handgun somehow more dangerous?

[280Hunter]

Originally Posted by Camp Cook

Remote wilderness area that is uninhabited it can be on private property or crown land.

Hey thanks for responding back to me Camp Cook I found the form to fill out for wilderness carry, and it asks if the applicant is engaged in the occupation of trapping or works in a remote wilderness area, and then asks for the Geographic location. How do you get around that? or can you?

[SkytopBrewster]

Originally Posted by 280Hunter

Hey thanks for responding back to me Camp Cook I found the form to fill out for wilderness carry, and it asks if the applicant is engaged in the occupation of trapping or works in a remote wilderness area, and then asks for the Geographic location. How do you get around that? or can you?

Yeah, thats where I gave up on filling it out, wanted to put all crown land Alberta but just can't see it happening.

[Camp Cook]

In my very first application for BC I applied for south western BC and was given all of BC so on every application since I applied for all of a province and was always given all of a province.

It is not a claim specific permit you can't find an area to claim without gettting out in the bush and looking first.

As of now if you do not work in the bush you are not going to get an authorization to carry permit simple as that.

[ELKOHOLICS]

No my comment regarding handguns they are no more dangerous than long guns but they are the preferred weapon of the two , for criminals due to there able to conceal I just would like to see tougher laws for violent crimes with stolen or illegal firearms so , the government could relax on the rest of us

[Camp Cook]

I understand where you are coming from but I still disagree with you though.

As far as I am concerned it shouldn't matter what tool is used if you are a violent criminal and use an axe/shovel/hammer/knife/long gun/short gun/car or whatever the violent act should be punished equally not the choice of weapon that the criminal is using.

It is time to stop going after the tool used and go after the violent criminal.

[elkhunter11]

As far as I am concerned it shouldn't matter what tool is used if you are a violent criminal and use an axe/shovel/hammer/knife/long gun/short gun/car or whatever the violent act should be punished equally not the choice of weapon that the criminal is using.

It is time to stop going after the tool used and go after the violent criminal

+1 Why should it matter if you kill someone with a gun, or with a knife?
If you take a life while committing a criminal act, you should pay the penalty, regardless of the weapon used.

[trooper]

As far as handguns are concerned, all a crook has to do is get a long gun like a ruger 10/22 or an ar7 and buy a hacksaw bingo! now he has a handgun!! do you honestly think that a crook gives a damn about the legalities of weather or not he can carry handguns?? The whole idea of registration is ludicris in the first place. W cuikier said that guns kill people well if that's right, then Knives, forks and spoons make people obese!

[Gonehuntin']

From what I gather, the process Canadian RPAL holders now go through, background checks, references, etc. is quite similar to the checks/paperwork required by many states for CCW permits. We ought have the choice to carry....or not.Treated as CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS would be a start.As pointed out previously by others, apparently we as a group are not trustworthy enough to carry handguns...

Citizens in good standing that have obtained RPAL and some basic level law enforcement type firearms training should be able to open carry their handgun anywhere and CCW virtually anywhere with a CCW permit-that SHALL be issued if there are no flags in the background checks,Instead of our theoretical ability to get an open carry permit only if you work in isolated wilderness, and only if the CFO feels like approving you.From what I gather, permits to carry are VERY few and far between up here, it's a pity.

[Rod1960]

Originally Posted by Gonehuntin'

From what I gather, the process Canadian RPAL holders now go through, background checks, references, etc. is quite similar to the checks/paperwork required by many states for CCW permits. We ought have the choice to carry....or not.Treated as CITIZENS, not SUBJECTS would be a start.As pointed out previously by others, apparently we as a group are not trustworthy enough to carry handguns...

Citizens in good standing that have obtained RPAL and some basic level law enforcement type firearms training should be able to open carry their handgun anywhere and CCW virtually anywhere with a CCW permit-that SHALL be issued if there are no flags in the background checks,Instead of our theoretical ability to get an open carry permit only if you work in isolated wilderness, and only if the CFO feels like approving you.From what I gather, permits to carry are VERY few and far between up here, it's a pity.

I like the way you think!

[Camp Cook]

I agree with everything except for this.

and some basic level law enforcement type firearms training

Why would I need any kind of law enforcement training to protect my life or the lives of others I'm not planning on arresting anyone.

All that needs to be done is exactly the same steps that are required to carry in remote wilderness areas.

The procedures are already in place to acquire handgun carry permits all that has to happen is expand the scope of when/why we want/need to carry.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by Camp Cook

I agree with everything except for this.



Why would I need any kind of law enforcement training to protect my life or the lives of others I'm not planning on arresting anyone.

All that needs to be done is exactly the same steps that are required to carry in remote wilderness areas.

The procedures are already in place to acquire handgun carry permits all that has to happen is expand the scope of when/why we want/need to carry.

I think he probably meant law enforcement type firearms training and drills, culminating with a proficiency test.

[Rugerlover]

I'd love to carry a .40 cal Glock with me on the trap line instead of the dumb ruger .22 LR. Sucks you can't even take your handgun out to shoot it on your own property...you can only use it on a range.