Posted on Mar 28, 2016
Idaho bill to allow permitless concealed carry inside city limits
6.46K
91
40
7
7
0
I'm all for concealed carry, but I think this bill validates my concerns with it. "Despite giving SB 1389 his signature, Otter expressed concern about the bill’s lack of a training or education requirement for those who would carry concealed. In a letter to the president of the Idaho Senate, Otter addressed public safety concerns that law enforcement raised throughout the development of the bill and urged individuals who are considering concealed carry to receive training in firearm safety". If the Governor thinks for one second this might not be the best thing to do, the best thing he could've done is send it back for revision with the caveat that mandatory training be taken to ensure weapon safety. There is NO WAY if I was Governor of anything I'd sign a bill into law that gives weapons to untrained individuals. It's not right at all. This could come back to bite, and what then?
Idaho bill to allow permitless concealed carry inside city limits
Posted from msnbc.com
Weapons
Safety
Gun Control
Concealed Carry
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
6
6
0
SSG Warren Swan I agree with permitless carry. I also think that (as with many of our civil liberties) there are inherent responsibilities that go along with them. When it comes to voting, we have a responsibility to be informed on the candidates. When it comes to what we say, it cannot be at the expense of other's liberties. When it comes to firearms, the inherent responsibility is knowing the safe operation of the firearm, marksmanship skills to accurately prosecute a target, and knowing the laws regarding carry. Whether or not I agree with a law, does not eliminate my responsibility for knowing it and obeying it. So while I agree that a license to carry should never be required, responsible carry should always be required. I personally would rather a safety course be required at the time of purchase rather than some ineffective law that is not going to prevent any gun violence. Nothing is going to prevent gun violence. A person who intends to inflict harm on others will do so; however, gun safety courses and training can reduce the number of accidents that occur as a result of ignorant handling of the weapon.
(6)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
PO3 Steven Sherrill - Wouldn't incorporating "training" into the price of a firearm be increasingly burdensome if one has to do so every time one purchases a firearm? If I give my shotgun to my son, and then go out and buy a new one would I still have to pay, and attend the requisite training? Just illuminating an issue with such a attachment to the price of a firearm.
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SSG Gerhard S. - Agreed, but when you take the law in this case and it really is no law, then there is a problem. What you, me or anyone else on here having a familiarity with weapons and the ability to teach that isn't the same as Jim Bob or Duane who think they can shoot because they shot at cans or a deer. This takes the accountability the state or federal government had, and places it on the person which is fine, until you begin to notice metrics that there are cases where there is no formal training and these people are "shooting from the hip"....BAD pun I know. You wouldn't give anyone in your PLT a weapon and not give some kind of formal training. You wouldn't give them a weapon and expect them to know the nuances of it, beyond the common sense rules, and we know common sense isn't common. The law makes it "easier" yes. BUT the fact it makes it extremely easy with no training is the flaw recognized by the Governor himself. Him recognizing that IS what makes this law a bad one. If he had no regrets, nothing tugging at his collar, or that cold wind that makes him shiver then fine; this wasn't the case.
(2)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG Warren Swan I Agree, training is both important, and essential, I would also suggest that people are wise to get some training in order to be in compliance with the laws that ARE on place. Failure to obtain such training, and instruction leaves one vulnerable to criminals, and to being in violation oneself. I would suggest, though, that a comprehensive, and involved licensure process is not only the answer, or necessarily the best answer, and still does not address the Idea of the criminal element.
(2)
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
SSG Gerhard S. - SSG Warren Swan It looks like we all agree that training is imperative, it is just a matter of figuring out the best way to go about insuring that people get that training.
(3)
(0)
5
5
0
NRA is making some big points here!!!! They should make training mandatory so that no one goes off half cocked with a loaded concealed weapon. And believe, I am a big advocate of concealed carry!
(5)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
As of July 1, 2015, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Vermont and Wyoming are considered constitutional carry states. And there has been no "wild west" attitude, or increase in violent gun crime. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0214/Concealed-carry-without-a-permit-Will-crime-go-up-or-down
Concealed carry without a permit: Will crime go up or down?
New Hampshire, Kansas, Mississippi, and Montana are considering legislation that would no longer require special permits to carry concealed weapons in public. Five states already have such laws.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Mark McMiller
Sgt David G Duchesneau Sorry, Dave, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. In a perfect world, you would be correct...but in a perfect world, we wouldn't need firearms either. Some municipalities in this country have used mandated firearms training as a roadblock to preclude honest citizens from owning and/or carrying firearms. They have done this by making it mandatory that the training occur at a training facility within that municipality knowing full well that no training facility exists within that municipality and then making the licensing fee for operating a training facility cost prohibitive so that no one in their right mind would open a new facility. Open carry has always been lawful in Arizona with no permit and no training and in the last few years that has been expanded to include concealed carry. Arizona does not have a epidemic of stupid people going off half cocked. And even if they did, Arizona law says that if someone unlawfully points a firearm at you, you are justified in killing them and cannot be sued civilly, so stupid people would probably weed themselves out over time.
(2)
(0)
Sgt David G Duchesneau
Cpl Mark McMiller - Thank you Mark for your answer. We do have the same Law here in NH. That's what nice about this forum. We all have a right to our opinion and interpretation to the Laws. Appreciate your thoughts!
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
I also agree with Constitutional Carry. The Second amendment clearly states "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Isn't a licensure process an infringement... I know it initially cost me time lost, plus hundreds of dollars, for my initial certifications, and each renewal cost's me lost time, and about a hundred bucks. Those are infringements.
(4)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Isn't that a play on words? If I'm being "infringed" one would think I'm being denied vs slowed down. Can't speak on the certifications. I only had to show my 214 pay $52 and wait through the background check. It came in the mail. But I don't see it as an infringement. I was still able to open carry if I wanted to, so no harm there.
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SSG Warren Swan - Merriam Webster says "infringe - to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)".
One being "slowed down", I would argue, IS being infringed.
In Michigan, one has to take a licensed class to receive certification, (couple hundred bucks when I did it). Then one has to pay for finger-printing, and a $115 "registration Fee", not to mention a day to take the course, which included, and required range time, and a trip to the county seat to wait in line for the application, and again for the fingerprints over at the Sheriff's office. And then there was the 6 week wait to get the license in the mail. I would argue that is a significant infringement. To be fair, the re-application process is less cumbersome, and only costs $85.00 plus $15 for the criminal history check, but still involves a trip to the county seat, and waiting in a line or two.
One being "slowed down", I would argue, IS being infringed.
In Michigan, one has to take a licensed class to receive certification, (couple hundred bucks when I did it). Then one has to pay for finger-printing, and a $115 "registration Fee", not to mention a day to take the course, which included, and required range time, and a trip to the county seat to wait in line for the application, and again for the fingerprints over at the Sheriff's office. And then there was the 6 week wait to get the license in the mail. I would argue that is a significant infringement. To be fair, the re-application process is less cumbersome, and only costs $85.00 plus $15 for the criminal history check, but still involves a trip to the county seat, and waiting in a line or two.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google