mark wrote:http://www.localnews8.com/news/26782346/detail.html

If you can legally own a gun, you should be legally allowed to carry.

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Wurble wrote:If you can legally own a gun, you should be legally allowed to carry.

That's kind of the thing isn't it? Out here in the wild west, if one is human and breathing and has a rudimentary grasp of, well...breathing, and is without any negative contact with the courts, legally purchasing a gun isn't much of a problem...and if one chooses to lie on the form...eh...whatever...as long as they have the money.

Getting a concealed license is a touch different. They actually do a check of one's background around here, one actually has to have demonstrated some degree of proficiency.

I am wondering what the response would be if the criteria for owning were elevated to the same standard as licensing?

rolandson wrote:

Wurble wrote:If you can legally own a gun, you should be legally allowed to carry.

That's kind of the thing isn't it? Out here in the wild west, if one is human and breathing and has a rudimentary grasp of, well...breathing, and is without any negative contact with the courts, legally purchasing a gun isn't much of a problem...and if one chooses to lie on the form...eh...whatever...as long as they have the money.

Getting a concealed license is a touch different. They actually do a check of one's background around here, one actually has to have demonstrated some degree of proficiency.

I am wondering what the response would be if the criteria for owning were elevated to the same standard as licensing?

In PA, the criteria for an LTCF is virtually identical to that of gun ownership. One difference is that you have to submit 2 "references". Not much else.

I believe that the second amendment gives U.S. citizens an absolute right to keep and bear arms.

O.T.O.H., I also believe that I have an absolute right not to get shot by accident by some idiot who doesn't know what s/he's doing with that piece of hardware he or she had a legal right to buy.

So, that being said, I believe people who want to carry weapons should be required to demonstrate proficiency with them before they do.

I also believe that unless one has a history of violence, or a mental deficiency that might make them likely to commit violence, that the government, at any level, has no right to stop that person from owning and carrying any weapon, within reason, they want to.

The 'within reason' part is where it gets dicey. Some people would carry the biggest, most destructive weapon they could, without considering the 'collateral damage' they might do if they used it.
I carry, when I carry, the smallest gun I feel adequately protected with, 'cause i worry about shooting someone I don't intend to shoot a lot more than I worry about blowing the bad guys away. YMMV.

It doesn't surprise me, it's Idaho. The NRA just wants to push them into following Vermont, Alaska and Arizona with their "no CCW required" open or concealed carry.