Posted: 8/27/2015 3:32:51 PM EDT
|
It’s probably a pipe dream, but let’s discuss it anyway.
Would you be in favor of WA issuing an Enhanced CPL? I know there are a few states with two levels of concealed carry permits/licenses. An Enhanced CPL would require some training and qualification minimums, but such a license may allow carry in states that currently do not honor WA’s CPL because WA issues CPLs without those requirements.. I think I could get on board with it as long as it doesn’t change the current CPL process. Maybe a holder of an Enhanced CPL would be allowed carry in schools and stadiums, and possibly other restricted locations. Would an ECPL just be more confusing? |
|
Quoted: Sacrilege I know, but I have no problem with a proficiency requirement so I would be ok with an enhanced CPL. Training/proficiency requirements may sound good until you realize what can happen when the .gov starts messing with the cost and availability. Only offered Wednesdays from 1-230pm, must attended 2 consecutive sessions, sessions limited to first 10 people. |
|
Quoted:
Training/proficiency requirements may sound good until you realize what can happen when the .gov starts messing with the cost and availability. Only offered Wednesdays from 1-230pm, must attended 2 consecutive sessions, sessions limited to first 10 people. Quoted:
Quoted:
Sacrilege I know, but I have no problem with a proficiency requirement so I would be ok with an enhanced CPL. Training/proficiency requirements may sound good until you realize what can happen when the .gov starts messing with the cost and availability. Only offered Wednesdays from 1-230pm, must attended 2 consecutive sessions, sessions limited to first 10 people. |
|
Quoted: That's how I feel as well, and why I would want the regular CPL to remain the same. The enhanced CPL would be optional. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sacrilege I know, but I have no problem with a proficiency requirement so I would be ok with an enhanced CPL. Training/proficiency requirements may sound good until you realize what can happen when the .gov starts messing with the cost and availability. Only offered Wednesdays from 1-230pm, must attended 2 consecutive sessions, sessions limited to first 10 people. I see a pandoras box. Introduce it for the enhanced CPL and see how long it takes a multimillion dollar bankroll to show up and push the initiative petitions up and down the I-5 corridor. |
|
Quoted: Training/proficiency requirements may sound good until you realize what can happen when the .gov starts messing with the cost and availability. Only offered on the fifth Wednesday after a blood moon from 12:00- 12:05, must attended 12 consecutive sessions, sessions limited to first 2 people. Quoted: Quoted: Sacrilege I know, but I have no problem with a proficiency requirement so I would be ok with an enhanced CPL. Training/proficiency requirements may sound good until you realize what can happen when the .gov starts messing with the cost and availability. Only offered on the fifth Wednesday after a blood moon from 12:00- 12:05, must attended 12 consecutive sessions, sessions limited to first 2 people. Fixt. These raggedy fuckers will never give one millimeter. If given the chance, preemption will disappear and we will be California overnight. |
|
Quoted:
I see a pandoras box. Introduce it for the enhanced CPL and see how long it takes a multimillion dollar bankroll to show up and push the initiative petitions up and down the I-5 corridor. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sacrilege I know, but I have no problem with a proficiency requirement so I would be ok with an enhanced CPL. Training/proficiency requirements may sound good until you realize what can happen when the .gov starts messing with the cost and availability. Only offered Wednesdays from 1-230pm, must attended 2 consecutive sessions, sessions limited to first 10 people. I see a pandoras box. Introduce it for the enhanced CPL and see how long it takes a multimillion dollar bankroll to show up and push the initiative petitions up and down the I-5 corridor. This. I would be normally in favor. However, seeing how progressive-liberals push their agendas the standard would end-up more difficult to get/renew and this new one would be a unicorn hunt. I have zero trust on those people. If it was possible to be negative trust it would be negative. 
|
| The first thing that comes to my mind is liability for those who chose to stay with the original permit. God forbid someone is forced to use lethal force to protect themselves and they don't have the enhanced permit. They will get eaten alive in court with the prosecutor saying that if they had received training they might have been able to avoid killing Mr. McBadguy but they chose not to only because they just wanted a permit to carry a gun to kill someone. |
|
Quoted:
This. I would be normally in favor. However, seeing how progressive-liberals push their agendas the standard would end-up more difficult to get/renew and this new one would be a unicorn hunt. I have zero trust on those people. If it was possible to be negative trust it would be negative.
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sacrilege I know, but I have no problem with a proficiency requirement so I would be ok with an enhanced CPL. Training/proficiency requirements may sound good until you realize what can happen when the .gov starts messing with the cost and availability. Only offered Wednesdays from 1-230pm, must attended 2 consecutive sessions, sessions limited to first 10 people. I see a pandoras box. Introduce it for the enhanced CPL and see how long it takes a multimillion dollar bankroll to show up and push the initiative petitions up and down the I-5 corridor. This. I would be normally in favor. However, seeing how progressive-liberals push their agendas the standard would end-up more difficult to get/renew and this new one would be a unicorn hunt. I have zero trust on those people. If it was possible to be negative trust it would be negative.
I wouldn't. Fuck that, not in a million years. The only one who gets to make the decision whether I carry or not is me. You don't put conditions on rights. |
|
Quoted:
I wouldn't. Fuck that, not in a million years. The only one who gets to make the decision whether I carry or not is me. You don't put conditions on rights. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I see a pandoras box. Introduce it for the enhanced CPL and see how long it takes a multimillion dollar bankroll to show up and push the initiative petitions up and down the I-5 corridor. This. I would be normally in favor. However, seeing how progressive-liberals push their agendas the standard would end-up more difficult to get/renew and this new one would be a unicorn hunt. I have zero trust on those people. If it was possible to be negative trust it would be negative.
I wouldn't. Fuck that, not in a million years. The only one who gets to make the decision whether I carry or not is me. You don't put conditions on rights. Yes. However, it would be better that people did some practice with the stuff they buy. How many buy something and never practice to at least feel how it works? Nevertheless, since a while ago I also gave it a "fuck that". Sick and tired of the progressive-liberals' bullshit. |
|
Proficiency is already required for all retired law enforcement personnel who wish to carry concealed (in all 50 states, at least according to the law) under HR 218. Although there is some variety in the different qualification courses, they don't seem all that difficult to pass.
That being said, the more government involvement in anything, the more difficult and confusing it gets. Plus, I have long believed that the only reason governments have requirements for permits, licenses, and so on, is so that they can tell some people they will NOT receive permission to engage in a behavior, or receive something they want. For example, although the purported reason for a license is to ensure that people have sufficient skill to operate a motor vehicle, there are a great many people who have sufficient skill to operate a vehicle WITHOUT a driver's license. Government just wants to tell some people to NOT operate a vehicle. |