New PA bill to recognize all nonresident carry licenses

[Mr H]

re: training

on an absolute standard, I agree that it shouldn't be necessary

but, in reality, other than in a GEICO commercial, words can't damage people

so, I would be in favor of some minimum standard for safety training

 

[press1280]

The training requirement makes national reciprocity more complex. Let's not forget that courts hold that police can't be expected to know the laws of other states, and they can't be expected to know which states have training and which don't. It's best left to that state.

 

[Mr H]

The training requirement makes national reciprocity more complex. Let's not forget that courts hold that police can't be expected to know the laws of other states, and they can't be expected to know which states have training and which don't. It's best left to that state.

Then, you end up with MD and NJ requiring a 40h class held on the 5th Monday in February, and other states asking you which end goes bang.

 

[swinokur]

There will be some congress critters who because of their political leanings, will want some training in order to support this IMO.

Perhaps it can be accomplished without them.

 

[swinokur]

Then, you end up with MD and NJ requiring a 40h class held on the 5th Monday in February, and other states asking you which end goes bang.

That's why a compromise of a short basic course would seem more palatable to some. It might prevent the scenario you describe

Perhaps a small flag on your permit could be placed there if you took the basic course and would allow nationwide carry. This might assuage the concerns of states who want training.

 

[Brooklyn]

Guys it can be done. And without conceding the rights issue.

It must not be discussed in detail in puplic. I want surprise.

Basically if you make it a requirement you conceded The right. But if you offer an inducement for which you get benefits beyond the base right it works out well. .
Think about how the stand your ground laws work.. they restore due process. But formally recognised training can go a long way toward helping you avoid trail. I am thinking we can get some rebuttable presumption in the law for cww holders that take the training. ( inducement).

Also I think we could do something about getting back attorneys fees for wrong full prosecution.

The time for negotiations is not yet here because there is no way they will keep their word.

But when the time comes we can get this done..

 

[ryan_j]

The training requirement makes national reciprocity more complex.

How so? We already have national reciprocity with a qualification requirement (LEOSA) and it's not complex at all.

I don't expect that we should have to qualify every year like law enforcement does, of course. But I don't think a simple safety class should pose a problem.

Consider as well that Utah and Florida permits are kind of like de-facto national CCW permits already, and to get either you need to take a class.

 

[ryan_j]

Slippery slope...if our community is serious about calling 2A a "fundamental civil right", this argument injects some very dangerous concepts. We are not required to have a basic course before exercising rights protected by 1A. We don't have to demonstrate that we can load and shoot off our mouths before attending the church services of our choice, for example.

In that case, why even have a permit to carry? We are already down the slope by having a requirement for a permit at all.

 

[swinokur]

As Mr. H pointed out, 1A rights can't cause death or bodily injury.(except Geico ads)

So the civil rights argument could possibly be mitigated and be subject to some reasonable regulation. I'm sure some courts would find this to be acceptable under any level of scrutiny.

my .02 IANAL

 

[Brooklyn]

We can get past the training issue by establishing a teiered system baisted on a performance standard. But right now we do not have anyone on the oposing side willing to negotiation on good faith. Until we get that thier is nothing to talk about.

Op force will use any agreement on our side to divide us and frankly they would see weakness.

They are not yet willing to come to the table..

We can not publicaly suggest that we are OK even in principal... it will do more harm than good.

Now in confidence we can do more... but never forget what Shumer is like... he will hurt us if we show any movement...

 

[yellowfin]

As Mr. H pointed out, 1A rights can't cause death or bodily injury.(except Geico ads)

Actually, printed and spoken words have incited people to action to harm others vastly more often than any single individual or small group of individuals has ever accomplished with any kind of weapon. Uncle Tom's Cabin, for example.

 

[swinokur]

If I point and shoot a gun at you, you certainly will be harmed. words may or may not have that effect.

Firearms are much more certain to cause harm than words. That would be subject to the perception of the other person. He has no control over your gun. He can control his reactions to your words.

 

[FrankZ]

If I point and shoot a gun at you, you certainly will be harmed. .

Unless of course you are NYC cop, then the bystanders get harmed...

 

[swinokur]

oops forgot about NYPD marksmen.

 

[press1280]

There will be some congress critters who because of their political leanings, will want some training in order to support this IMO.

Perhaps it can be accomplished without them.

I can't think of any senator (the House is a slam dunk) who's on the fence about it because of a training requirement. If that were the case we'd have seen it already.

 

[swinokur]

even better then

 

[Brooklyn]

As Mr. H pointed out, 1A rights can't cause death or bodily injury.(except Geico ads)

So the civil rights argument could possibly be mitigated and be subject to some reasonable regulation. I'm sure some courts would find this to be acceptable under any level of scrutiny.

my .02 IANAL

You had better hope not. If so its over. Thus would mean a total ban might pass rational basis. That means if we do not get strict scrutiny a total ban on cc is OK.

I am not kidding.

 

[swinokur]

exactly what I meant.

 

[Brooklyn]

I can't think of any senator (the House is a slam dunk) who's on the fence about it because of a training requirement. If that were the case we'd have seen it already.

In my opinion the training requirement is a poison pill.
As States move to constitutional carry we will miss support on the right. On the left they need only keep holding out for higher cane hiher standards until we lose more on the right than we can ever gain on the left. If we let them do this do us we deserve to lose.

The child out states will never sign on. The cones in the middle when really don't want it but fear a voter backlash will be able to jump ship and say they were defending the right from training requirements and the constutonal carry states will talk about the 10a and call us sell outs.

Only Schummer and Blomberg will win.

This us how they will play it.

Do we let them.. ?

The deal must be made quietly without anti States getting involved, and it can't be done until the senate changes ( Reid will not allow a vote)


If this goes south the constitutional carry state may not even risk mining with using the future..

 

[Mooseman]

Does anyone have any idea when Pennsylvania will be voting on this bill? Is there legislature even in session?