Straight_Shooter
Regular Member
imported post
"I don't understand it either but I'm not going to complain about it. Are you complaining about it?"
No . . . quite the contrary . . . I see it as an inadvertent "loophole," which I am willing to try to exploit to the fullest. I plan on submitting a certificate of "participation in any firearms shooting competition" and seeing where it gets me. I'll be happy to report how that turns out.
"However you want to slice it we need constitutional carry."
As in the past, even now I maintain the same . . . and have never veered from that course.
"That is where we need to go instead of dwelling on the specifics of this bill."
I would respectfully dissagree, as the flaws in this bill are now the flaws in the law . . . this is no different than the position taken by all when we were "may issue" . . . we point out the flaws in the law to pursuade lawmakers and others to pursue change. I know you say this to try and deflect attention away from NRA/Iowa Carry, which is noble, but I can't change the fact that they are the ones that agreed to this. I believe you will now see a "split" within the ranks of that group, because there will be many who will say "what we have now is good enough," and others who will say "we need to make the law better by removing some of the flaws" (or move to "constitutional carry" as you have).This will cause a dilution of the pressure to change the law that we had before this . . . this is one of the fallicies of "changing the law gradually" . . . you lose activitists as you go.
No one yet has provided a good explanation as to how “participation in any firearms shooting competition” can be acceptable evidence that you have completed and NRA or DPS handgun course, but that is what the law infers . . .
I don't understand it either but I'm not going to complain about it. Are you complaining about it?
The next year or so will prove to be very interesting on several fronts . . . .
No doubt.
However you want to slice it we need constitutional carry. That is where we need to go instead of dwelling on the specifics of this bill.
"I don't understand it either but I'm not going to complain about it. Are you complaining about it?"
No . . . quite the contrary . . . I see it as an inadvertent "loophole," which I am willing to try to exploit to the fullest. I plan on submitting a certificate of "participation in any firearms shooting competition" and seeing where it gets me. I'll be happy to report how that turns out.
"However you want to slice it we need constitutional carry."
As in the past, even now I maintain the same . . . and have never veered from that course.
"That is where we need to go instead of dwelling on the specifics of this bill."
I would respectfully dissagree, as the flaws in this bill are now the flaws in the law . . . this is no different than the position taken by all when we were "may issue" . . . we point out the flaws in the law to pursuade lawmakers and others to pursue change. I know you say this to try and deflect attention away from NRA/Iowa Carry, which is noble, but I can't change the fact that they are the ones that agreed to this. I believe you will now see a "split" within the ranks of that group, because there will be many who will say "what we have now is good enough," and others who will say "we need to make the law better by removing some of the flaws" (or move to "constitutional carry" as you have).This will cause a dilution of the pressure to change the law that we had before this . . . this is one of the fallicies of "changing the law gradually" . . . you lose activitists as you go.