If the license was recognized in all 50 states, for what specific state laws should the person trained?
Should a person be trained for use of their First Amendment rights before they are allowed to exercise them?
Requiring training for the free exercise of a right granted by our Creator and guaranteed by the Constitution is rediculous.
What you are proposing is more restrictive than what presently exists. Why do you want to do that? I carried a firearm in North Carolina several months ago, both open and concealed. Washington State requires no training; North Carolina recognizes Washington States CPL, and no license is required to open carry. Why would you want to impose more restrictions?
Gun laws don't work! Bad guys don't obey them. Why do you want to impose more laws on law abiding citizens?
I agree that training is wonderful. I've taken many courses, and I have more planned. But, how would you get bad guys to seek the required training? Oh, that's right. They don't have to get any training because they don't abide by laws anyway.
Good grief!
I understand your perspective and that you are not alone. I also hear that you think training is wonderful but should not be required. Got it. While I hold ideals as well I also try to live in the world as it is. This may not be about what bad guys do or don't do. we all know that. It could be about a discussion about what would you be willing to trade for a CPL recognized anywhere.
Anyone else - ideas?