On 09-Dec-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: r> Maybe I'm a legislator at heart, probably because I've looked at lots of r> legislation, dealt politically with committees, and am interested in game r> rules & other technical writing. Anyway, it gives me reason to see such a r> bit of legislation as a "natural".
r> The status quo is that only certain persons are allowed to possess guns r> on such gov't property as streets.... Who sees the streets as govt property? r> ... For reasons that are second nature to everyone here, we seek to allow r> more people to do more peaceful things. The ostensible presumption of gun r> carry laws is that many or most people are too dangerous to carry certain r> weapons, and that other people are not too dangerous to carry them.... Yet most adults can carry unrestricted in Vermont and Alaska. r> ... It seems reasonable to assume that a key criterion in deciding how r> safe someone is with a gun would be formal training in their use. r> Therefore one could liberalize some gun laws by allowing people to carry r> guns if they've had formal training in their use. Washington state has no training required for its concealed carry permit, and we have no more problems with CPL holders than states that require training. r> The question then would arise, how much & what type of training would be r> sufficient? Legislators could haggle over that for a long time, and wind r> up delegating part or all of the decision-making to bureaucrats. However, r> it would seem that all would have to agree that at least the training r> police receive is sufficient, for to call that into question would be too r> disturbing.... By all means, let's disturb them. Members of the local gun club have told me they've left the range when the cops showed up to practice because the members felt the cops were too unsafe to be around. Wasn't there an immigrant shot in NYC a few years ago at point-blank range by some cops? Something like 43 rounds shot, with a dozen hits? r> ... Therefore while details of further liberaliz'n are being worked out, r> it would seem a reasonable step would be allowing police to carry off r> duty, and for a certain length of time after retirement. The same could r> probably be achieved for current & former members of the organized r> militia and standing armed services. How about citizens with valid Concealed Carry permits issued by any state? r> Whether police are ACTUALLY safer in their use of guns is not of major r> importance here. As long as they are PERCEIVED as such, legislation such r> as this would have a good chance of passage. r> Such legislation would also serve as a slight "sweetener" for recruiting r> for such jobs -- a perk possibly in lieu of a few $ pay. Uh-huh... a lifetime govt perk for a govt agent. _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
