As for the bill. The gentleman from Danville has gotten this written up to "allow those that are considered low-income to be able to defend themselves", as he put it. Personally, I don't see this point as truly being a valid one for passing this bill into law. Like someone else had written here, Kentucky has OC available to those that can't afford or just don't wish to carry concealed.
Greater (raw, not per capita) numbers of low-income people live in cities than in the country, places in which open carry is likely to be more difficult due to unfortunate political circumstances. While it is clearly not right, you would, in effect, consign poor people to being jacked up by police officers who are not aware of the laws they are sworn to uphold. As for those who do not possess concealed carry permits due to choice and not financial circumstances, believe me, they
do wish to carry concealed. They wish to carry according to their choice, based on the conditions they find themselves in. In short, they wish to be allowed to "bear arms" as stated in the Constitution, but are not permitted to by unconstitutional laws.
I fear that this might only work to weaken the rep that the CCDW has come to signify.
I am disappointed that you are concerned about losing some kind of "rep" that you feel you derive from a government-issued piece of paper-and-laminate. With whom do you deal that you feel you gain a benefit by having a certain "reputation" that you claim goes with a CCW? The general public? They're Americans just like you are; to think otherwise is to be kindred to the police officers and military in this country who feel that they are a privileged castes, "sheepdogs," if you will, destined to rule over and guide the helpless serfs. How about fellow open carriers? Your government "mother may I" card won't buy no whiskey in my circles, that's for sure. Finally, if you desire "rep" to facilitate your interactions with law enforcement, let me remind you that those who work for us have no business treating their masters like criminals for exercising their inalienable rights, the very same ones that we supposedly pay the police to protect!
I can't say that the class alone makes for a better concealed carrier, it does make for a more informed one though. I fear that if this bill becomes law, we will have alot of folks out there carrying that have never handled a firearm in there lives, some that might not even know ANYTHING about carrying concealed.
Where in the Constitution does it say that one must be informed to exercise their inalienable rights. Should you have to take a government-mandated class on "responsible journalism" to publish a blog or print leaflets at home? Should you have to take a government-mandated class on "religious extremism" (focusing in on that of the "right-wing" variety, of course) before you can attend church?
Furthermore, is there anything fundamentally different about "alot of folks out there carrying that have never handled a firearm in there [sic] lives" when the weapon is concealed from when it is openly carried? If you are worried about ignorant people that your beloved government hasn't vetted to its satisfaction running amok with guns, why do you post to a site that advocates the unlicensed carrying of firearms?
All it will take is one or many a couple shootings by paniced carriers that were allowed to carry concealed under this new thing and then those of us that have actually taken the class, done our range work and then gone on to study and even train above and beyond, to lose the CCDW. Maybe these fears are unfounded but are we really willing to play "russian roulette" with our licenses?
This hasn't happened in Alaska, Arizona or Vermont, states that currently have constitutional carry. This didn't happen (at least not on any kind of a regular basis) for the 150 years or so in which there were no weapons laws anywhere in this country. Are you really that fearful of your fellow Kentuckians that you believe your state will buck the trend?
It was also mentioned somewhere that this new bill, if passed into law would only allow these folks to carry concealed within kentucky, it would NOT be honoured anywhere outside Kentucky like our current CCDW is. I can not find where I read this though.
This is also the case in the states that have constitutional carry; only Vermont does not issue a permit of any kind to those who wish to have reciprocity with other states. Out here in the west, it's not that big of a deal, because all states other than Commiefornia have open carry. Either way, just because the state of affairs is such does not mean that it always must be so. Our eventual goal should be 100% constitutional carry everywhere in the country.
My personal thought, we need to keep everything as it is. If it's not broken, why try to fix it? *LOL*
I think you will find that the majority of posters on this site seek a return to the traditional American, constitutional values that once made this the greatest, and most importantly, freest nation on earth. The status quo is somewhat of an anathema. If you must ask for governmental permission to carry out an activity, it is no longer a right, but a limited privilege. The American/traditional liberal perspective is that individual rights are inalienable; they preexist this government and every government. In fact, the purpose of government is to protect those rights. What you are advocating is the western European model, in which "rights" are actually privileges, derived from the state itself and its almighty benevolence, revocable at any time and only to be granted when it is also in the interests of the collective.
P.S.: I almost forgot; the biggest logical fallacy of your argument is that criminals, already breaking or seeking to break other laws, will not worry about obtaining a concealed weapons permit or will be legally barred. So, those of you who get on your knees, kiss the dirt, render unto Caesar, and beg the government to pretty please allow you to carry concealed are being laughed at by the criminal element for being suckers. Quite frankly, they're right.
