Enhanced LTC

[strogg]

I think I know where many forum members are coming from. I, just like pretty much all others here, believe that every gun owner (and even non-gun owner alike) needs to be trained and educated on responsible firearms ownership. Plain and simple. Licenses are a way to ensure uniformity and a guarantee that each person has at least some sort of minimal training and education before they carry on their bodies out in public. What most people on the forum see as a stupidly simple requirement may be difficult for many others not as well versed in firearm ownership as we are. Unfortunately, a massive side effect of licensing is a stifling of a fundamental constitutional right. And I wholeheartedly agree with everyone here who referred to that fact.

Now, I'm not saying licensing to carry is the only answer to training and education. But I'm going to have to side with the enhanced license crowd unless someone comes up with a better solution to the issue of untrained, uneducated people roaming the streets of Texas with a firearm they don't know how to properly use.

[jordanmills]

LTC holders have a lower criminal rate than LEO[...]

I've seen this stated several times. Do you have any statistics to support it? I've looked but can't find anything clear. I want to be able to back it up when someone argues.

[jordanmills]

I think I know where many forum members are coming from. I, just like pretty much all others here, believe that every voter (and even non-voter alike) needs to be trained and educated on responsible voting. Plain and simple. Licenses are a way to ensure uniformity and a guarantee that each person has at least some sort of minimal training and education before they vote out in public. What most people on the forum see as a stupidly simple requirement may be difficult for many others not as well versed in voting as we are. Unfortunately, a massive side effect of licensing is a stifling of a fundamental constitutional right. And I wholeheartedly agree with everyone here who referred to that fact.

Now, I'm not saying licensing to vote is the only answer to training and education. But I'm going to have to side with the enhanced license crowd unless someone comes up with a better solution to the issue of untrained, uneducated people roaming the streets of Texas with a ballot they don't know how to properly use.

I dunno about all that.

[rotor]

LTC holders have a lower criminal rate than LEO[...]

I've seen this stated several times. Do you have any statistics to support it? I've looked but can't find anything clear. I want to be able to back it up when someone argues.

Actually this was posted recently here but I can't find the post. Watch this youtube video as this gentleman discusses it.

[rotor]

LTC holders have a lower criminal rate than LEO[...]

I've seen this stated several times. Do you have any statistics to support it? I've looked but can't find anything clear. I want to be able to back it up when someone argues.

Here is another source
https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/rep ... on-bandler

[jordanmills]

LTC holders have a lower criminal rate than LEO[...]

I've seen this stated several times. Do you have any statistics to support it? I've looked but can't find anything clear. I want to be able to back it up when someone argues.

Here is another source
https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/rep ... on-bandler

Excellent. Thank you very much.

[Paladin]

I think I know where many forum members are coming from. I, just like pretty much all others here, believe that every gun owner (and even non-gun owner alike) needs to be trained and educated on responsible firearms ownership. Plain and simple. Licenses are a way to ensure uniformity and a guarantee that each person has at least some sort of minimal training and education before they carry on their bodies out in public. What most people on the forum see as a stupidly simple requirement may be difficult for many others not as well versed in firearm ownership as we are. Unfortunately, a massive side effect of licensing is a stifling of a fundamental constitutional right. And I wholeheartedly agree with everyone here who referred to that fact.

Now, I'm not saying licensing to carry is the only answer to training and education. But I'm going to have to side with the enhanced license crowd unless someone comes up with a better solution to the issue of untrained, uneducated people roaming the streets of Texas with a firearm they don't know how to properly use.

I think you have some good thoughts here. The founder's vision was not only "that every man be armed", but that they be trained as well.

I believe that to preserve freedom, we not only need the right to keep and bear arms, but that right to keep and bear arms should never be taxed, and that the government should also provide training per the US Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The militia means us. Per Federalist 46 James Madison expected 25% of the US population to be armed militia. In 1788 that was half a million. In 2019 that would be around 82 million. Per James Madison's vision no army, foreign or domestic could ever conquer the "advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

[strogg]

I think I know where many forum members are coming from. I, just like pretty much all others here, believe that every gun owner (and even non-gun owner alike) needs to be trained and educated on responsible firearms ownership. Plain and simple. Licenses are a way to ensure uniformity and a guarantee that each person has at least some sort of minimal training and education before they carry on their bodies out in public. What most people on the forum see as a stupidly simple requirement may be difficult for many others not as well versed in firearm ownership as we are. Unfortunately, a massive side effect of licensing is a stifling of a fundamental constitutional right. And I wholeheartedly agree with everyone here who referred to that fact.

Now, I'm not saying licensing to carry is the only answer to training and education. But I'm going to have to side with the enhanced license crowd unless someone comes up with a better solution to the issue of untrained, uneducated people roaming the streets of Texas with a firearm they don't know how to properly use.

I think you have some good thoughts here. The founder's vision was not only "that every man be armed", but that they be trained as well.

I believe that to preserve freedom, we not only need the right to keep and bear arms, but that right to keep and bear arms should never be taxed, and that the government should also provide training per the US Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The militia means us. Per Federalist 46 James Madison expected 25% of the US population to be armed militia. In 1788 that was half a million. In 2019 that would be around 82 million. Per James Madison's vision no army, foreign or domestic could ever conquer the "advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

Paladin, that's a good point with the Federalist 46. Now if only the government actually acted on that... Sigh.

Also I forgot to mention as you did that yes, the license (aka certification of education and training) should definitely be free of charge.

[Paladin]

I think I know where many forum members are coming from. I, just like pretty much all others here, believe that every gun owner (and even non-gun owner alike) needs to be trained and educated on responsible firearms ownership. Plain and simple. Licenses are a way to ensure uniformity and a guarantee that each person has at least some sort of minimal training and education before they carry on their bodies out in public. What most people on the forum see as a stupidly simple requirement may be difficult for many others not as well versed in firearm ownership as we are. Unfortunately, a massive side effect of licensing is a stifling of a fundamental constitutional right. And I wholeheartedly agree with everyone here who referred to that fact.

Now, I'm not saying licensing to carry is the only answer to training and education. But I'm going to have to side with the enhanced license crowd unless someone comes up with a better solution to the issue of untrained, uneducated people roaming the streets of Texas with a firearm they don't know how to properly use.

I think you have some good thoughts here. The founder's vision was not only "that every man be armed", but that they be trained as well.

I believe that to preserve freedom, we not only need the right to keep and bear arms, but that right to keep and bear arms should never be taxed, and that the government should also provide training per the US Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The militia means us. Per Federalist 46 James Madison expected 25% of the US population to be armed militia. In 1788 that was half a million. In 2019 that would be around 82 million. Per James Madison's vision no army, foreign or domestic could ever conquer the "advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

Paladin, that's a good point with the Federalist 46. Now if only the government actually acted on that... Sigh.

Also I forgot to mention as you did that yes, the license (aka certification of education and training) should definitely be free of charge.

Congress has consistently failed to enact James Madison's vision defined in Federalist 46 and written into the highest law of the land. In addition to guaranteeing our freedom, James Madison's approach would also save taxpayers a whole lot of money. Currently the US military spends around $450,000 per service member/year. That cost increases dramatically when deployed overseas. In Switzerland they have historically spent more like $10,000 per service member/year. State Defense Forces are approximately $1,000 per service member/year. Per Federalist 46, Madison did not intend for the US to not ever have a standing army, but that the militia would be the majority.

[Paladin]

An example of an modern day program along the lines of James Madison's vision where the government currently pays for weapons and training:

The Federal Flight Deck Officer Program: A Model of Effectiveness and Efficiency in a Government/Industry Partnership

The federal cost to have a deputized FFDO on board is approximately $17; the cost incurred for each Federal Air Marshall onboard is approximately $3,000

An FFDO is 176 times cheaper and the program should be expanded. We could literally double the number of aircraft protected by the FFDO with perhaps a 3% cut to the remainder of the Federal Air Marshal Service budget.

“We’ve always had retention issues due to the amount of flying,” says Frank Terreri, an active air marshal. “We should be twice the size that we are to be effective.”

article