As a non-criminal, non-crazy (I checked the box on the application that says I'm sane) permit holder in my states, I off course agree with you Jake that there should be well trained and citizens allowed to carry in public to protect themselves, their families and anyone in dire need. To your points...
>>1. extensive background check
fine by me, i was finger printed and the state sends them to the feds for an OK before they issued my permit. Not sure how much more extensive it needs to be, if I'm not a known criminal, what more should the government be allowed to check on? What if I don't pay my taxes, can I still get a permit?
>>2. psych evaluation
in principle, I don't disagree with this, but how to do you implement this in a reasonable and standardized way? I'm pretty sure plenty of crazys would slipp through the cracks if it was just a formulized interview. I'm not a psychiatrist but I assume it takes many sessions with a willing, honest, and cooperative subject to determine thier mental state. And where do you draw the line? only fully sane people can get permits? what if you daddy issues or think you're santa clause but have no violent tendecies or depression?
>>3. xx many hours of training
Fine with this as long as its reasonable. I took an 8 hour state-approved NRA safety course that was about 6 hours in the classroom, a written test and and hour of hands on range time. I could see extending this to include more hands on time with the instructor and more discussion of the legality of when and where it is safe and legal to use a firearm.
>>4. $xxx cost
It was pretty expensive. The NRA class, the fingerprint/background-check fee, the local temporary permit (which is required to get the state permit) and the state permit. All cost me several hundred dollars.
>>5. reevaluation and reexamination every two years to keep permit
Hmm, probably smart. Two years might be extreme, but at least a basic proficiency demonstration might not be a bad idea when you renew (in Connecticut thats every 5 years.)
>>I think at that point you would eliminate 98% of dipshits who want to use it for evil.
yes, but the current hoops already eliminate the 99.99% of those dipshits -- those people don't go through the processes already in place; they aquire weapons through illiciet means and have no regard for the law. The Sandy Hook shooter tried to buy a gun in Connecticut but was denied because he didn't have a permit. So instead he killed his mom and took her guns.
I agree some reform is in order and these are good places to start but I'm concerned about the cost hurdle that it creates. While I don't have a problem with shifting the administrative costs on to the applicant, those costs could be very restrictive (which it looks like you're in favor of in #3) but I feel that such restrictiveness is beyond the scope of power the government should have. In effect, you're saying that poor people don't have the same rights as people who can afford to pay the tribute.
