IA_farmboy
Regular Member
imported post
Max G wrote:
I addressed this in my post above. We are discussing the permit to carry weapons and not a concealed handgun permit. The IGO bill addresses this by removing the penalties for a person carrying a dangerous weapon when not in the commission of a crime.
No, I object to government mandated training. I encourage everyone to get training in self defense. What I do not like is some government agent telling an adult how and what kind of training they need to be safe.
Standardizing the training state wide just means that all Iowans will have their rights violated equally.
So, no training is fine if you can get your permit before this bill becomes law?
Not realistic? Says who?
I know of at least two states that do not have a training requirement, Indiana and Pennsylvania. I know this because I have run across people online that have told me so, and that can be verified by going to usacarry.com or the respective state license authority. When I have the time I might just tally up which states do not have a training requirement. You just might be surprised.
What if I am not concerned about reciprocity? The IGO bill covers this by allowing people in Iowa to arm themselves without the need for a permit while making a permit available solely for the purpose of reciprocity.
Why does Iowa have to provide a permit for reciprocity? Should not Iowa be concerned about what happens in Iowa? If people want to carry in another state then perhaps those people should get a permit from another state.
I think it was in South Dakota that they proposed two different permits, a Class A and a Class B permit to carry. The Class A requires training while the Class B does not. Either are valid in the state but only some states would recognize the Class B.
Oh, there is a third state that does not require training for a permit to carry, South Dakota. Their proposed solution to the poor state of reciprocity is not raising the barrier to entry for all but only for those that wish to jump through that hoop. I propose we can, if reciprocity is such a concern, do the same.
Max G wrote:
IA_farmboy wrote:... why is gaining "shall issue" in the first step and then AK or VT style law in step two such a bad thing?
It wouldn't be a bad thing if that is in fact what you were doing. You are taking one step forward with shall issue but, taking two steps back with the training requirement and raising the age for permits.
1. You can't buy a handgun if you are under age 21 now per Federal Law. So how is it a step backward to not provide for a carry permit if you are under age 21? Furthermore, the IGO Bill also did not provide for the right to carry if under age 21.
I addressed this in my post above. We are discussing the permit to carry weapons and not a concealed handgun permit. The IGO bill addresses this by removing the penalties for a person carrying a dangerous weapon when not in the commission of a crime.
2. A minimal training requirement is in the NRA Bill. So you object to training?
No, I object to government mandated training. I encourage everyone to get training in self defense. What I do not like is some government agent telling an adult how and what kind of training they need to be safe.
The problem with today's law is that training requirements vary across all 99 counties. The NRA Bill standardizes the training requirement, and in some areas, like Polk County, makes the training easier than what the Sheriff requires today.
Standardizing the training state wide just means that all Iowans will have their rights violated equally.
3. The approx 28,000 permit holders today would have no training requirement for a Shall Issue permit.
So, no training is fine if you can get your permit before this bill becomes law?
4. I'm not aware of any of the 38 States with a Shall Issue law which do not have some training requirement. So to expect this Bill to pass in the Iowa legislature without the minimal training requirement that is in the Bill, is not realistic.
Not realistic? Says who?
I know of at least two states that do not have a training requirement, Indiana and Pennsylvania. I know this because I have run across people online that have told me so, and that can be verified by going to usacarry.com or the respective state license authority. When I have the time I might just tally up which states do not have a training requirement. You just might be surprised.
5. For those concerned about reciprocity, and increasing the number of States which honor the Iowa permit, there must be some training required.
What if I am not concerned about reciprocity? The IGO bill covers this by allowing people in Iowa to arm themselves without the need for a permit while making a permit available solely for the purpose of reciprocity.
Why does Iowa have to provide a permit for reciprocity? Should not Iowa be concerned about what happens in Iowa? If people want to carry in another state then perhaps those people should get a permit from another state.
I think it was in South Dakota that they proposed two different permits, a Class A and a Class B permit to carry. The Class A requires training while the Class B does not. Either are valid in the state but only some states would recognize the Class B.
Oh, there is a third state that does not require training for a permit to carry, South Dakota. Their proposed solution to the poor state of reciprocity is not raising the barrier to entry for all but only for those that wish to jump through that hoop. I propose we can, if reciprocity is such a concern, do the same.