Moderator: Charles L. Cotton
lrb111 wrote:I feel sure this issue exists due to a compromise somewhere along the line.
I've recently become aware that there are large numbers of citizens that work hard, provide safety and security for their families, but cannot have a chl because they owe student loans or state taxes.
I had no idea the scope of denial.
However, it seems to me this exclusion of citizens from the ability to provide safety for themselves, family, friends, and those that they might aid with a concealed handgun, is a serious oversight.
In fact denying a licence on these grounds, is tantamount to equating loan defaults to crimes and misdemeanors.
What the current requisites means to me is that the legislators did not really fuilly grasp the priority this legilation deserved. But, instead were treating this "right to keep and bear arms" as another minor state controlled privelege. Or maybe equal to hunting and fishing licences.
But there are a lot of folks out there tweaching school, doing internships, trying to recover from financial difficulties brought on from all kinds of things beyond there control, and to top it off the state says they are no class bums that deserve whatever they get from the dregs of society.
This is a cruel injustice to those that might truly benefit from the safety that having a chl might offer. Especially since those that aspire to have a chl, are as a group planning to be the most law abiding, and protective of values that we hope to endear in the general society.
fwiw, does a LEO lose his job if he can't carry, due to owing on a student loan or back taxes?
the state says they are no class bums that deserve whatever they get from the dregs of society.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest