Originally Posted by Terry_P
Thats the problem with may issue. If you meet the states criteria then they should have no other choice and there should be a time limit on it as well.
Agreed Terry, the problem with any putting the choice of whether or not you may carry in another humans hands is that it will be colored by that persons beliefs or even their personal idiosyncrasies and prejudices.
Shall issue resolves that problem by tying the issuance of a CCW to law and not to the whim of a sheriff or other servant of "We The People".
Personally, I think working for a CCW law at all is like asking permission to breath. The Constitution says "shall not be infringed". That is black and white. No gray areas.
Vermont, Arizona, Alaska style carry law is Constitutional law. No Shall issue. No may issue. Just do as you please. Thank you.
The question of whether a criminal will carry illegally is stupid because they will do so regardless of any law. Duh.
So any law regarding firearms restricts law abiding citizens which is un-Constitutional.
Laws that go beyond the simple and direct are a way to control the law abiding. They are not designed to control the lawless. We call them lawless for a reason. That is not because they are law abiding is it.
The world appears to be heading in the direction of responsible carry by anyone with the desire anyway, whether we want it to or not. Self -defense is understood by all creatures great and small. The mouse will bite, the cat scratches, The dog bites, the bull stomps, the lion roars.
I spoke with a human recently that said she would not defend herself or family if attacked. Fine, just don't interfere with me.