Well we can scratch Wilshire gun off the list...

[YukonGlocker]

Sometimes we just have to use common sense and life experience. It's just more trustworthy sometimes when you aren't getting anything else.

Wilshire Gun's recommendations for training, but no "requirements" or "mandates" for training, seem fairly common sensical to me. Do you disagree with them? They never supported any mandated training, so where does common sense take us on that issue; or is there something I'm still missing?

 

[caojyn]

Okay I think I've got this figured out. There's currently a training requirement for legal open carry, and there's legislation right now that would remove that requirement. Wilshire guns has gone on record saying they don't support this legislation.
So... They're not in favor of having a training requirement, they're just against the removal of the existing training requirement? Is Wilshire owned/run by the clintons?

 

[YukonGlocker]

...There's currently a training requirement for legal open carry, and there's legislation right now that would remove that requirement. Wilshire guns has gone on record saying they don't support this legislation...

Where is this record?

 

[Sanford]

Where is this record?

Wow. You a stockholder or some such? You're beginning to look a bit like Ace defending Hillary. Just sayin', no offense intended.

 

[YukonGlocker]

No offense taken. I have no affiliation with Wilshire Guns...just trying to figure out what the actual issue is.

 

[SMS]

Where is this record?

I'd kinda like to see it too. I like a good hangin', but not without evidence.

 

[Burk Cornelius]

No offense taken. I have no affiliation with Wilshire Guns...just trying to figure out what the actual issue is.

It's the "H&H Syndrome" everybody hates the big guys. Which is ironic because their competition that everybody raves about is actually called "Big Boys"

posted via Tapatalk

 

[Sanford]

I'd kinda like to see it too. I like a good hangin', but not without evidence.

Maybe it's just me, but I took the entire context of the KWTV 9 report "Some lawmakers supported a bill that would allow anyone over 21 without a felony conviction to carry openly..." (with the "OMG" tone and expression to go with) to be a bit "anti", starting with the "Some lawmakers..." as opposed to "A majority of lawmakers...", and couching it in terms of how it was "controversial" and emphasizing that the instructors say that "the training requirement is not unconstitutional" instead of that "there is no constitutional requirement for training." One has to listen to what's said, how it's said, and what's not said.

I wouldn't hesitate for a minute to believe that the people at Wilshire may have been quoted out of context, or that the report gave a skewed impression that wasn't the one they intended to give - but if that's true there should be a strong rebuttal that clarifies exactly where they stand, i.e., do they or do they not support permitless open and/or Constitutional carry, and do they or do they not believe there should be a mandatory training requirement (which necessarily implies some sort of regulation/permitting to be enforceable). The closest they've gotten is "not opposing" which can easily be miles away from "supporting", and even then it's still followed with that "... but everyone needs training" qualifier which is (obviously from posts here and elsewhere) easily taken to mean that the one is predicated on the other.

Now, I don't live up there, and I've only been in a few times. It seems like a nice enough place, and the people I spoke with were helpful and congenial. I wish only the best for their continued success, but that's also why I think it's critical for them to make a simple "We wholeheartedly support the proposed legislation" type statement. Period. Stop. No further qualifiers. Conversely, if they do not support it as written, without qualification, they need to say that. Period. Stop. There's far too much doublespeak in their responses on Facebook to be sure of just what they "really" mean.

(edit) disclaimer: this is my opinion and perspective alone, right, wrong, or irrelevant. (/edit)

 

[caojyn]

From their representative Kevin maxfield
"Carrying openly, it attracts a lot of attention, so you need to make sure you have the training in multiple different ways "


need
verb

1. 1.
   require (something) because it is essential or very important.
   "I need help now"
   synonyms: require, be in need of, have need of, want;More
   
   
2. 2.
   expressing necessity or obligation.
   "need I say more?"
   synonyms: have to, be obliged to, be compelled to
   "you needn't come"

 

[YukonGlocker]

From their representative Kevin maxfield
"Carrying openly, it attracts a lot of attention, so you need to make sure you have the training in multiple different ways "


need
verb

1. 1.
   require (something) because it is essential or very important.
   "I need help now"
   synonyms: require, be in need of, have need of, want;More
   
   
2. 2.
   expressing necessity or obligation.
   "need I say more?"
   synonyms: have to, be obliged to, be compelled to
   "you needn't come"

Nice try. You said: "Wilshire guns has gone on record saying they don't support this legislation." You have yet to show this.