imported post
I completely understand what ArizonaTexan is saying. To get a CHP, you have to prove some form of training, butto OC, if otherwise eligible (no felonies, restraining orders, etc.) you need NOTHING. A 22 year citizen who has NEVER been around a gun before is entitled to OC. To me, that is inherently dangerous and can lead to they types of disasters that could potentially end OC as we know it. Unfortunately not everyone is as smart as we are and actually look up the laws and requirements before carrying a gun. (Otherwise, our membership would be through the roof!)
We're constantly stating that OC is about our rights and about educating the masses, butif we're doing the educating, who educated us? Does it not stand to reason that we should be educated first? You are? Then prove it. To me, that would bethe only merit in Licensed OC, the proof of training. No oneshould ever have to ask for permission to exercise that whichis already their right, and yettraining and education arealwaysgood things. Therein liesthe problem.
The problem is how to ensure that someone has had training without that verification process being under the guise of "licensing". There are a number of ways to receive the training, military experience, NRA classes, other classes, but the only way to consolidate that training into one verifiable document (Firearms Training Cert Card or something like that). That would still beaform of governmental control that is akin to asking permission.
For example...even if the lawwas"Shall Issue OC License upon Receipt of Proof of Training"and you showed proof of training at the court clerk's desk, there would still be a form that would have to be filled out and a standardized, recognizeable, controlled card that would have to be filled out and mailed back to you and the associated filing fees. The total time to process that would have to be calculated and a fee created based on that amount.Who will pay for all that? The county? Nope. The state? Nope. The citizen? Yep! But soon, that "filing fee" would be seen as having to PAY for that RIGHT that is inherently yours already. This is the problem.
Now here's the big question: Exceptfor not having a background check, how is that process any different from the concealed permit process? It isn't!! YOU still prove training, YOU still pay the fees, YOU still end up with a card in your wallet that says your legal and safe.
Perhaps someone with the time and resources could compile the data of all "bad things" associated with OC (ND's, collateral damage, misses, etc) as compared to all "good things" such as crimes averted, BG's eliminated, etc, and then extrapolate how many of each of those good and bad things occurred at the hands of the "untrained".Now this is mere conjecture, but you might find that the percentage of bad things that happened at the hands of the untrained that MAY have been averted through training are so insignificantly small, it's not worth the effort to prove training at all.
While Licensed Open Carry has the potential tosatisfy proof of training and potentially inherently be safer for everyone, it is a tradeoff and one that not everyone is willing to make.