74novaman wrote:The simple answer is that we have other state examples to guide us on whether or not this would be an issue.Zen wrote: What about those that get a CHL, but just keep that little wheel/pocket gun in a pocket holster or purse, but never go to the range? What impact does it have when there are CHL holders that haven't shot since they were certified?
There is a risk there. 1) They can hurt/kill someone due to their lack of training and practice. 2) They can raise doubts to the validity of the CHL program as a whole and give fodder for the anti-gun folks.
I would rather be inconvenienced by renewal testing than have these individuals become that risk.
Indiana has a lifetime CHL. Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming all have Constitutional Carry (no license or training of any sort needed to carry concealed)
I haven't seen any dire reports of untrained and underpracticed citizens getting into bad situations in any of those states.
And so the risk may be so small it wouldn't make sense to add that complexity and cost.
Perhaps the untrained/underpracticed don't continue to carry and become a non-risk. I know I've talked to plenty of CHL holders that "claimed" they still carried , but were extremely ignorant about the law and in some cases their own carry guns.