…should, I think, be this:
A permit holder currently must qualify on each individual weapon they want to carry concealed, even if they are similar.
Under the proposed measure, a permit holder would have to qualify for a revolver, semi-automatic weapon or both in order to carry them. But they would then be allowed to carry any firearm within those categories.
Might be time for me to get that Nevada permit sometime soon.
Oklahoma has a bit different system: there are three license levels: derringer, revolver and autoloader. Derringer license lets you carry that only, revolver is revolver and derringer, autoloader lets you carry any of the three.
And no, don’t know just how they came up with that.
Yeah, it is a bit of a patchwork even here in Cali, with some counties limiting you to three or four guns listed on your permit by serial number, and some not being so anal — I am sure it will all get standardized soon as we litigate them into compliance. Sigh. You free states have it so easy….
A permit holder currently must qualify on each individual means of communication they want to use for free speech in a public place, even if they are similar. Under the proposed measure, a permit holder would have to qualify for a printing press, internet terminal, spoken word, or a writing tool, in order to use them to communicate in public. But they would then be allowed to exercise public free speech with any device within those categories.
Call me an incrementalist.
Just my prediction: I don’t have a dog in the fight since I can be federally permitted (LEOSA-04, which DOES require type-certs), but this will probably the “reasonable restriction” that will be adopted as more an more gun prohibition gets erased from the statute books. It’s hard to argue against, too, because there is ample legal precedent involving other technically-dangerous devices. As soon as just one or two such laws get on the books, and survive their initial test, the antis will seize on over-qualification as their new prohibition. It’s already been done: the airline pilots got their right to carry erased with an over-qualification regime.
BTW, that used to be an old Oregon law from the May Issue days. My dad had a permit for his Navy-issue 1911 when he worked as a CCC-Camp doctor in the early 30’s. When he later tried to get the permit renewed for a civilian Series 70 Colt that he bought, the Sheriff of that County said no, he could only have renewed under that EXACT weapon (by serial #). A few years later, Oregon went to Shall Issue, and my dad got his permit back. I have to qualify every year with a revolver AND pistol, under LEOSA-04, if I want to be certified to carry either as a retired LEO.
If this stuff comes to pass, I’d like to see credit for qualifying while serving with Uncle Sam. At any rate, I’d prefer a general gun handling test. Otherwise, the bureaucrats would likely start piling on ever finer-grained requirements.
I guess the question to ask is if most shall-issue states don’t have a qualification requirement. I (perhaps erroneously) assumed they all did.
Certainly a no-qualification-required standard is the one to aim for; that’s just going to take more than a few baby steps to accomplish (if ever) here in California.
I know Washington State does not, David. There is a great website that tracks differences and similarities between state laws… http://www.usacarry.com/ seems to have most of that info but it’s not the website that I was thinking of.
This is incrementalism … on the part of the gun grabbers.
Until the legislature stepped in, you didn’t have to worry about this qualification crap in Nevada. And this qualification crap was used as an excuse to invalidate ALL out of state permits. Oregon has a similar problem. Allowing any government body to vet out of state issued permits is a big mistake, and should be rectified.
They are trying to avoid having all of their new restrictions repealed under voter pressure, nothing more.
Giving these a-holes a single inch is a mistake. The proper retaliation is complete repeal of the change, and then a push for Vermont carry afterward. Give the victim-disarmament crowd something to really worry about.