Cheflife, in all due respect, if I'm being robbed and beaten, and a good Samaritan with bad aim wants to assist me with his gun, I will gladly let him do so. I could care less if he's a perfect shot at 100m
Yes I understand that & will obviously abide by it. I am not stupid. I mentioned with the lawsuits going around there was a stipulation that as long as your qualified to carry you shouldn’t be restricted to 1 gun. I will let everything play out & see what happens down the road. It seems each county is making up their own rules which is unconstitutional as per 2nd amendment.
im not even going to ask about qualifying with another gun and having it put on my permit yet. They have an attitude when you speak with them. They act like they’re doing you a favor. I have a Glock 26 which is great. It’s just the point I brought up about the restriction placed on my permit when an adjoining county gives no restrictions. It’s all good!!!
Unfortunately, Lots of things are unconstitutional. With that said, respectfully, I'm happier knowing a guy who can't hit a target more than a couple feet away isn't blasting away next to my wife and kid. Part of being a responsible gun owner is knowing how to handle the gun you carry.
There is nothing keeping you from shooting the current gun you have with better profiency. Dry fire, take a class, practice. That should be your focus.
Under Bruen, the US Supreme Court ruled any gun law has to be ". . . consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." Being an expert shooter with a tiny handgun or requiring liability insurance or banning carry in your car or at the public park, all may have some benefit, but all have no "historical tradition." So unless the Supreme Court reads " high level of proficiency," in the 2nd Amendment, it's really unconstitutional to require such a test, imho. It's a good idea to shoot accurately. But it's not Constitutional and will be rejected by the US Supreme Court at some point, imho