CPL w/o training? i think its crazy


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

UWstudent
January 19, 2006, 09:17 AM
i just remembered something..

about a year ago i obtained my CPL or CCW permit (WA), and all they did was made me fill out a page or two of paperwork, pay 60 bucks and throw a washington state firearms saftey pamphlet or something at me.

yeah, i realize they conduct a little investigation to make sure you're not medically insane and you haven't been evading the law enforcement recently..

but, shouldn't some sort of training be done?

when i was waiting in line to return the paperwork and pay the money, i remember a dude who was making his girlfriend fill out the paperwork so she could obtain a CCW permit (i remember her b/c she was hot!! :) ) but also, she was wearing flip flops, decked out in abercrombie, weighed probably 90 lbs and will probably be packing a .45 that was purchased from her over protective boyfriend..

i just really hope she has took some formal training on how to use her firearrm. i did, but i've also been shooting since i was a kid since i wasn't raised in the urban downtown of seattle, but more into the country (shelton).

If you enjoyed reading about "CPL w/o training? i think its crazy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
1911 guy
January 19, 2006, 09:33 AM
That most people who will go to the trouble of packing a handgun for any length of time will put the effort in to get some kind of training if they are new to firearms. It's too much hassle if you're not committed to it.

The other observation I have is that requiring training is the state limiting a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Training is good, so are seat belts. Should the nanny state tell you you HAVE to wear it? Punish you for not wearing it? Where do you draw the line between personal responsibility and excessive legislation "for the children"?

My wife often runs around (summer time) in shorts and tank top, sandals or flip-flops. Weighs about 100 Lbs. She might outshoot you.

rms/pa
January 19, 2006, 09:34 AM
WARNING A PRE COFFEE RANT:
the problem with training being required is , i ain't got no spare 150 bucks for a course. it is just a way of keeping the poor from having a permit.

any filter to bearing arms is a pain..... IMHO and reeks of prior restraint.

the crime of simple possesion (sp) of ANYTHING is difficult for me to justify.

it give LEO's a great reason/excuse to roust and seach passersby and makes criminals out of those who are ignorant of the latest banned object.

yes there are arguments for it but most of them make me:banghead:

rms/pa

Kaylee
January 19, 2006, 09:41 AM
Also, um....

remember the DMV, and Driver's Ed in High School?

Somehow I can't imagine the kind of lowest-common-denomiator training you get with state-mandated, state-regulated training in most cases being worth much anyways.

Janitor
January 19, 2006, 09:46 AM
The other observation I have is that requiring training is the state limiting a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Training is good, so are seat belts. Should the nanny state tell you you HAVE to wear it? Punish you for not wearing it? Where do you draw the line between personal responsibility and excessive legislation "for the children"?
Exactly.

The 2nd does not say:

"The right to keep and bear arms by trained individuals shall not be infringed."

Though I take a bit of exception to the seat belt analogy. Cars & driving them are completely regulated by the state and are mentioned noplace in the constitution. Not even in the generic form of "transportation". The constitution can not be regulated at the state level, but somehow that's the boat we find ourselves in with the 2nd.

carbon15b
January 19, 2006, 10:04 AM
I think mandatory testing at the polls would be more imprtant. People do far more damage by electing morons to office, than they could do with a single handgun.

benEzra
January 19, 2006, 10:12 AM
a dude who was making his girlfriend fill out the paperwork so she could obtain a CCW permit (i remember her b/c she was hot!! ) but also, she was wearing flip flops, decked out in abercrombie, weighed probably 90 lbs and will probably be packing a .45 that was purchased from her over protective boyfriend..
My sister is also hot, petite (5'9" and 120 lb), and is probably decked out in abercrombie as I type this.

She is also a professional engineer, one heck of a shot, owns an S&W CS9, and has her local shooting range on speed dial. :D

Appearances can be deceiving...

UWstudent
January 19, 2006, 10:17 AM
i still dont think its right to grant people who have no idea how to use or handle a firearm, a CPL.

i don't the training should be 150 dollars.. or out on field with mr. ranger.. but i'll take back what i said about "training".. because even a simple exam of 20 questions would suffice, which would mean the person acquiring the CPL would have a brief knowledge about the state rules.

so, i know a couple of you are thinking its the CPL's respnsibility to figure everything out on their own but i GARUNTEE you that girl i mentioned above had absolutely NO idea what a pistol was.

spare the comments about your 90 lb wives and sisters that fit this girls profile, and how she could probably outshoot me. so what? im sure a lot of girls can out shoot all of us due to their lower center of gravity.. but my assumptions are typically (not always) accurate. this girl was saying things like "why do i have to do this again?".. and.. "is this legal?".

so, for you guys that think a simple questionaire about fire arm saftey isn't necessary, then i guess you guys would feel very secure if this chick pulls out a .45 that she's never shot before and starts aiming it at the first guy she sees that sorta looks like the dude that stole her pink cell phone.

just not right.

El Tejon
January 19, 2006, 10:20 AM
IME, the most dangerous people on the range on the people who have been shooting "all my life!":uhoh:

No, no sort of training should be required to exercise any civil right. It is a fraud, a prior restraint, a barrier to entry, the creation of a parasitic class and no more constitutional than requiring comparative religion classes for your "License to Attend a House of Worship."

If you are concerned about training (have you guys noticed that people are always worried about someone else's level of skill but never about themselves?), the way to affect change is to change the culture. Make training the "in thing" to do. Use public policy to impact the culture for the free exercise of rights--firearms training in schools, public ranges, state-sponsored shooting contests, inter alia.:)

UWstudent
January 19, 2006, 10:25 AM
u should have read my last post el tejon

training is not the issue..

Janitor
January 19, 2006, 10:29 AM
Wow.

Ok. I had a (relative) bunch more I wanted to say. But I've just been upstaged by a lawyer.

(have you guys noticed that people are always worried about someone else's level of skill but never about themselves?)
Well put El T.

UWstudent ... Who would you have write the exam? Mayor Daily?

1911 guy
January 19, 2006, 10:30 AM
Frankly, the attitude that comes across is a bit elitist. Apparently, nobody but the highly trained, including yourself, no doubt, are capable of exercising good judgement.

Center of gravity has nothing to do with being a better shot. Mindset and training take care of that.

The pamphlet you were given was probably a brief outline of the states CCW regs. Did you read it or assume you knew what was in there because you're smarter than the girl in flip-flops?

I'll spare you the comments about my 100 Lb wife outshooting you when you spare the rest of us your gross generalizations and "smarter than the average bear" attitude and pro-victimization thoughts on women being told to take some responsibility for their own safety.

ShackleMeNot
January 19, 2006, 10:30 AM
Why stop at a 8 or 10 hour mandatory class?

I think there should be a MINIMUM of 120 hours of training and a two year waiting period before being able to receive your Concealed Carry Permit. Permits should cost $1000 and half of that money should be put into a fund for the victims of handgun violence.

:rolleyes:

Just remember everybody's idea of a "reasonable" training requirement might be different.

Self defense IS A RIGHT.

UWstudent
January 19, 2006, 10:31 AM
alright.. so this is what i'm understading mr. 1911

a 15 minute questionaire (kinda like getting ur food handlers permit) is NOT ok for the people that don't know if they should shoot somebody that snatched their cell phone?

1911 guy
January 19, 2006, 10:32 AM
You are positive she's had no training or education on the law in your state since you sawe her? How?

El Tejon
January 19, 2006, 10:34 AM
Is she hot?:D Mmmm, city of hot girls. Think I saw that movie in undergrad.

UW, I live in state full of such people as Indiana does not require any sort of training. I walk the streets without fear.:)

UWstudent
January 19, 2006, 10:37 AM
first of all, she looked like she was FORCED to get her CPL b/c her boyfriend made her. secondly, (yes, im gonna start stereotyping) she was 90lbs, wore pink everything, chatted on her pink sell phone about clothes and money. then asked why she was doing this again and if it were legal.

now, taking all this.. why don't you guys make a visualization of this.

all i'm trying to state is, i'm NOT comfortable knowing she has a gun. if i saw her today, i would avoid her to be honest.

btw, i did read the pamphlet. i'm not special where i think i'm "above" the average bear.

GTSteve03
January 19, 2006, 10:38 AM
a 15 minute questionaire (kinda like getting ur food handlers permit) is NOT ok for the people that don't know if they should shoot somebody that snatched their cell phone?
I'd feel much safer around girls that are carrying because their boyfriends want them to be safer walking around at night than a bunch of Internet Rambo wannabes in their Tacti-cool thigh-rig holsters and Schlock 2000 uber-pistols with itchy trigger fingers! :neener:

1911 guy
January 19, 2006, 10:43 AM
If you want to discuss merits of your view versus my view (and a lot of others, it appears), I'm all for it. Maybe we can both take something from the discussion. If, however, all you want to do is use one girl you have a low opinion of as an example of why nobody but you is smart enough to educate themselves, count me out. I'll check back in 10 mins for a thought out rather than button pushing comment. If not, I'm gone from this one. Not gonna waste time talking to someone who's mind is already made up.

ShackleMeNot
January 19, 2006, 10:45 AM
UW, I live in state full of such people as Indiana does not require any sort of training. I walk the streets without fear.:)

Indiana has very few problems with permit holders shooting people who don't need to be shot. Funny how we lack a training requirement.

I want to be the guy who gets to look at people to decide if they are worthy of carrying a gun. Where do I apply for that job?

UWstudent
January 19, 2006, 10:50 AM
If you want to discuss merits of your view versus my view (and a lot of others, it appears), I'm all for it. Maybe we can both take something from the discussion. If, however, all you want to do is use one girl you have a low opinion of as an example of why nobody but you is smart enough to educate themselves, count me out. I'll check back in 10 mins for a thought out rather than button pushing comment. If not, I'm gone from this one. Not gonna waste time talking to someone who's mind is already made up.


I don't want to bother discussing our differences because apparently everyone here knows a girl thats fits the profile of our subject and has a high opinion of her. well, duh.. this is THR. not disarm-america.com
My mind is made up. I would avoid this chick and flee if I ever saw her.
We're not going to make a difference, so how about all the guys reading this who want to arm their signifficant other, please please please teach them state rules and wahtever. hey, the same goes to the ladies who have b/f's who don't know anything :cool:

cadfael
January 19, 2006, 10:54 AM
The problem as I see it is not training. It's a mandatory hurdle that could and probably would be abused.

I believe that most people here are in favor of people who take the responsibility of carrying upon themselves understand what that responsibility entails.

The problem is what level of training is *needed*:
15 min questionaire? What questions?
Demonstration of ability? What is "good enough"?
Classroom training? Who is qualified to teach?

All of these items can and will be abused by people trying to control access to guns.

All I can do as a CHL owner is show by example, and refer anybody looking for information to an expert.


Adam

ShackleMeNot
January 19, 2006, 10:54 AM
Ok, answer this honestly. How much training have you had?

USMCRotrHed
January 19, 2006, 10:56 AM
Here's my take on the training requirements. Whether right or wrong. I gladly sat through the class because in my state it is basically a class that reviews the laws regarding concealed carry. They give you the information that WILL KEEP YOU FROM BEING SUED. The firing portion of the class is only enough to verify you will not shoot your toe off during the draw.

Yeah, the class costs too much, but you are paying an instructor who takes on a lot of liability. Who do you think will get called to the stand if you have to go to court to defend your shoot? He will have to testify as to what exactly you were taught.

The fees charged for the permit itself, well, it may not be right, but freedom isn't free applies here too I guess.

If you want to put blame on someone for the requirements, default to blaming a lawyer!

UWstudent
January 19, 2006, 11:01 AM
Ok, answer this honestly. How much training have you had?

took just about every handgun class at the firearms academy of seattle inc with completion of FAS-3

http://www.firearmsacademy.com

PS: i've also been taking brazilian juijitsu for 6 years now under marcelo alonso

waterhouse
January 19, 2006, 11:03 AM
My mind is made up. I would avoid this chick and flee if I ever saw her.
We're not going to make a difference, so how about all the guys reading this who want to arm their signifficant other, please please please teach them state rules and wahtever.

In some places, getting a concealed permit takes a lot of time. Perhaps the boyfriend in your scenario was having her fill out the paperwork first, and then he was going to take her to a range, give her several hours worth of safety and shooting lessons, and discuss with her the state laws. That way, when she finally got the permit, she would be ready.

I'm not saying this is what happened, but you seem to be basing this whole thing on one girl you saw talking on her pink cell phone. And yes, other than the pink cell phone part, I know several fairly attractive, petite girls (one of them even wears pink a lot) who are very good shots.

Tom Servo
January 19, 2006, 11:07 AM
so, for you guys that think a simple questionaire about fire arm saftey isn't necessary, then i guess you guys would feel very secure if this chick pulls out a .45 that she's never shot before and starts aiming it at the first guy she sees that sorta looks like the dude that stole her pink cell phone.
First off, this has echoes of the old, "there will be blood in the streets and vigilante shootings at every traffic altercation" mentality. Do these things actually happen? I never hear of them. It just smacks of stereotyping and generalising. Here in Georgia, tons of people have permits, but many never even carry. There's no guarantee this person will be carrying.

Second, do you know this person, or are you just going from first impressions? Yeah, she sounds questionable, but so do alot of folks I see at the range who turn out to be quite safe and adept shooters. Heck, I had blue hair for a while back in college. Not dark-blue-almost-black, but blue, like the color of a swimming pool. I filled out my first CCW app in pretty ratty clothes. Does that mean I wasn't qualified?

Point the steely eye of judgement inward first.

UWstudent
January 19, 2006, 11:08 AM
hey, you guys could be right.. and i really hope you are right..

Janitor
January 19, 2006, 11:09 AM
If you want to put blame on someone for the requirements, default to blaming a lawyer!
D##n you El T!!!

:)

pcf
January 19, 2006, 11:42 AM
UWstudent,
Read about a kid named Jeremy Purcell. He was accidentally killed by one of the best "trained" professionals in the world. Complancency, poor judgement, cockiness, and an outright lack of respect for safety lead to the Purcell's death.

Training is very important, but it's just a hurdle or a crutch for weak minded individuals.

UWstudent
January 19, 2006, 11:50 AM
im sure well informed individuals are less likely to make mistakes than those who are not.
and i'm sure well informed individuals are less likely to put themselves and others in danger or risk when the threat is occuring. they'll also be less likely to commit something that could be used against them in a court of law.

put yes, there are instances like the DEA agent teaching kids about firearms.

Dave Markowitz
January 19, 2006, 12:10 PM
Pennsylvania has no training requirement for CCW, nor has it had one since it became a shall-issue state well over a decade ago. It has not resulted in a deluge of unjustified or accidental shootings.

There are a couple problems with requiring training:

1. It's yet another obstacle to the exercise of a fundamental right (I'd like to see AK/VT carry, rather than require CCW permits).

2. It opens another avenue for antigun officials to introduce their own discretion into what should be a procedure which should not allow them to add their bias.

WayneConrad
January 19, 2006, 12:15 PM
The right to keep and bear arms is not about personal safety. It is not even about the safety of the community.

It is about the ability of the people to, as a last resort against a government turned tyrranical, having failed at all measures political, to use those arms to reclaim the government for the people.

Although the untrained carrying firearms does not cause the problems we suppose it might, it's still too important a right to worry about little things like shootouts in the street. Governments kill far more people than the untrained citizen, and are the actual threat. And that threat is why the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct.

Majic
January 19, 2006, 12:21 PM
Just steer clear of this girl in the future since you have such a low opinion of her and while you are at it wonder about everyone else you happen to come in contact with because you won't know who is carrying concealed.

XLMiguel
January 19, 2006, 12:29 PM
Well regulated = well trained. We the people have a legitimate interest in our safety such that untrained people carelessly running about with firearms constitute a real hazzard. If all the did was take themselves out, I'd just write it off to "natural selection", but . . .

I understand the arguements about a training requirement amounting to a barrier, but - IMNSHO, anyone who gets into firearms without training is a fool, and a dangerous one at that. I believe you can train yourself, but I also believe most people are lazy.

All 'n all, though, as long as we hold people accountable for their actions, if someone who didn't bother to train skrews up, they they should have the book thrown at them. That kind of negligence truly is criminal.

ShackleMeNot
January 19, 2006, 01:02 PM
took just about every handgun class at the firearms academy of seattle inc with completion of FAS-3

http://www.firearmsacademy.com

PS: i've also been taking brazilian juijitsu for 6 years now under marcelo alonso

Ask Marty what he thinks about your first post.

Andrew S
January 19, 2006, 01:53 PM
I am with you man.

In NV you have to take a class and qualify with the weapon you want to conceal before you can be issued a permit for it and I am perfectly comfortable with that.

People here dont take kindly to any restrictions on the second amendment and they tend to get pretty defensive when topics like this pop up. Just try and remember that and that you are a minority here when posting anything that can be considered "anti-gun." So be careful with your wording and be prepared to get an ear full for it.

Tom Servo
January 19, 2006, 02:00 PM
Well regulated = well trained. (...) as long as we hold people accountable for their actions, if someone who didn't bother to train skrews up, they they should have the book thrown at them. That kind of negligence truly is criminal.
Of course, we could fix this whole issue by putting gun-safety classes in our public schools...oh what the heck am I thinking. That'll never happen.:mad:

Dave Dembinski
January 19, 2006, 02:05 PM
so, for you guys that think a simple questionaire about fire arm saftey isn't necessary, then i guess you guys would feel very secure if this chick pulls out a .45 that she's never shot before and starts aiming it at the first guy she sees that sorta looks like the dude that stole her pink cell phone.


Yes, life can be very distressing when you make assumptions about the relative intelligence and experience levels of your fellow passengers on Spaceship Earth. Start doing that and next thing you know you start thinking banning kitchen knives is a common-sense measure for the good of society.

I've got no problem with CPLs being issued without training.

Henry Bowman
January 19, 2006, 02:26 PM
I think mandatory testing at the polls would be more imprtant. People do far more damage by electing morons to office, than they could do with a single handgun.I agree, yet leftists cry that merely have to show some ID at the polls is racist, bigoted, elitist, and overly burdensome. :rolleyes:

I have personal experience with the states of Washington, Indiana, and Pennsylvania which are shall-issue and have no training requirement. My ankles have not been reddened by blood in the streets there.

Vern Humphrey
January 19, 2006, 02:49 PM
i just remembered something..

about a year ago i obtained my CPL or CCW permit (WA), and all they did was made me fill out a page or two of paperwork, pay 60 bucks and throw a washington state firearms saftey pamphlet or something at me.

yeah, i realize they conduct a little investigation to make sure you're not medically insane and you haven't been evading the law enforcement recently..

but, shouldn't some sort of training be done?
).

What sort of training did you have in mind?

As someone who has been in the commercial training business for many years, I point out that training is a solution. When you advocate a solution, you ought to have a problem. And ideally, there ought to be some connection between the problem and your recommended solution.

I have heard people say, "Well, they ought at least to be able to strip and clean their guns." Hmmmm . . . so the problem is too many dirty guns?

Some people say they need to learn to shoot. So the problem is licensed citizens miss too many felons?

Others say, "They need to be trained in firearms safety." But firearms accidents are going down, not up.

What is the problem?

Moondoggie
January 19, 2006, 03:11 PM
I took the 16 hr, $80 CCW course in AZ.

I was amazed by the attitudes of other class members regarding the legal/ethical application of CCW...these folks had watched waaay too much TV!

The common perception was if you catch somebody removing the stero from your vehicle in your driveway you waste 'em on the spot. Just blast away. When the law was 'splained to them one of the older gents remarked "What good is this permit if you're not allowed to shoot anybody?" He was serious.

My training? Many iterations of "Application of Deadly Force" training during 26 yrs of Marine Corps service and many annual firing requals with rifle/pistol. 2 yrs as a reserve LEO, one yr of employment as an armed security guard (NRC Certified 120 hrs of training) at a nuclear power plant. Currently a USPSA certified range officer.

I'm hoping Nebraska passes CCW through our Unicameral in the next few weeks. I'll have to pass some sort of approved training to obtain my $100 permit. That's OK with me. Hopefully, because of the training requirement, some other CCW holder will know that they can't drop me with a shot in the back if they see me carrying a concealed weapon in the grocery store.

Herself
January 19, 2006, 03:12 PM
Well regulated = well trained. We the people have a legitimate interest in our safety such that untrained people carelessly running about with firearms constitute a real hazzard.
Can you back that up with stats? Accidental deaths due to firearms appear to be trending down!

It is debatable that well regulated = well trained. In the usage of that time, it can just as easily mean "equipped with standarized weapons" and "equipped with weapons having properly-adusted sights."
The justification clause in which "well-regulated" is found can also be read as, "The government's going to have armed and drilled troops," in which case "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means "...therefore, individual citizens should be able to have guns, too." Remember, the people writing this had just been through a conflict where citizen-soldiers with their privately-owned weapons had stood against government troops using standardized arms; they had reason to be concerned that the average guy might need to stand against soldiers.

If anyone carrying a weapon "screws up" they do face serious charges, and I see no reason why having had training should mitigate that as you have implied. Trained, untrained -- if you cause unjustified harm with your weapon, you're going to have to answer for it. It's about actions and consequences, not about doing well in class and getting a nice license or diploma.

-Herself

USMCRotrHed
January 19, 2006, 03:13 PM
I think the problem is: IF you have to shoot, you need to make sure you don't open yourself up to a criminal or a civil suit. CYA!

At one point in my life I went through the police academy, we spent 2 weeks on "Legal Matters" or as the academy lawyer/instructor subtitled it "How not to get sued". Almost sounds Monty Pythonish, huh.

Anecdotal evidence:

In my state just last week, there was a convienence store robbery. The clerk who had a CCW permit and was carrying got beat up. The store was robbed. While the turds were on the way out the door, the clerk shot one of them in the back and killed him. NOW the DA is deciding whether or not to bring charges against the clerk for manslaughter because he was no longer in grave danger when he shot.

Should he be put away or praised? Would you know if you didn't attend at least a class on the CCW laws in your state?

wqbang
January 19, 2006, 03:19 PM
Washington has been issuing CPL's since the 60's and there has been no blood in the streets due to lack of training.

Compare and contrast to states such as Vermont and Alaska with no licensing requirement. Idaho has no requirement for CCW out of town or in your car. Montana is the same.

Training is a modern feel-good measure added on to CCW bills in order to ease passage.

Am I saying training isn't needed or wise? Absolutely not.

Vern Humphrey
January 19, 2006, 03:28 PM
I think the problem is: IF you have to shoot, you need to make sure you don't open yourself up to a criminal or a civil suit. CYA!

Yes, but that's your problem, not the government's.

It is one thing to mandate training -- which is often used to make permits hard to get -- and another thing for a wise man to select and participate in training voluntarily.

As I say, no one can show a problem related to lack of training of permit holders.

In my state just last week, there was a convienence store robbery. The clerk who had a CCW permit and was carrying got beat up. The store was robbed. While the turds were on the way out the door, the clerk shot one of them in the back and killed him. NOW the DA is deciding whether or not to bring charges against the clerk for manslaughter because he was no longer in grave danger when he shot.

Should he be put away or praised? Would you know if you didn't attend at least a class on the CCW laws in your state?

The answer is it doesn't matter if we know or not -- the DA will do what the DA will do, and he'll do it based on his prejudices, not on anything taught in a class to applicants for permits.

Henry Bowman
January 19, 2006, 03:41 PM
Training is a modern feel-good measure added on to CCW bills in order to ease passage.Ding-ding-ding. We have a winner!

Trip20
January 19, 2006, 03:50 PM
UWStudent,

If WI gets it's CCW bill passed, I'll have to travel at least 2hours from my home (one way) in order to take the required class. It costs $150. Now tack on gas, food (this is a whole day affair), the $75 for the actual permit, and the cost increases substantially.

This is a huge pain in the rear, and an unnecessary one at that. Not to mention the amount of people who's budget cannot bear this costly requirement - thus a certain segment of society will be shut out of their right to carry - at least for a period of time.

Unacceptable.

You speak of a "20 question" test being sufficient. That test would be pretty darn close to useless. What you want is some feel-good measure in place so you can feel safe walking the streets. It sounds very much like certain other arguments I hear relating to gun control.

A simple test will be about as effective as when NYC started searching all persons who used their subway system to avoid a terrorist attack. The city put that measure in place to make everyone "feel good" that their officials were doing what they can to protect them. They were checking everyone. How many tax dollars were wasted... just so everyone could feel good?

NineseveN
January 19, 2006, 03:59 PM
i still dont think its right to grant people who have no idea how to use or handle a firearm, a CPL.

Did you go through training to get your license to type? if not, stop posting on the internet.


so, for you guys that think a simple questionaire about fire arm saftey isn't necessary, then i guess you guys would feel very secure if this chick pulls out a .45 that she's never shot before and starts aiming it at the first guy she sees that sorta looks like the dude that stole her pink cell phone.

just not right.

I smell a wolf in sheep's clothing. :scrutiny: ..with a hint of sexism in there as well.

See, the thing is, many states have no testing or training requirement, the streets do not run with blood because of all the lowly untrained CCW people. I live in PA, no training required for a CCW and we issue as many as or more than most places; we have no problems here from untriained people killing others in the streets over pink cell phones.

MatthewVanitas
January 19, 2006, 04:01 PM
Wqbang beat me to it:

Vermont and Alaska (and maybe soon Montana and Wyoming): ZERO requirements beyond being an adult non-felon.

And yet the streets of said states are not filled with mouthbreathing morons firing upon hapless bystanders. Verily, even the pink-frocked denizens of Juneau either choose not to carry guns, or are pretty good at tucking them into their Juicy shorts.

Is training a good thing? Darn skippy.

Should it be mandated and enforced by the good folks down at the DMV? Nope. The standing in line alone would be horrendous. Man, I hate the DMV...


-MV

beaucoup ammo
January 19, 2006, 04:01 PM
IMO, a person should have at least a working knowledge of the handgun's' dynamics: "Do this..and that happens".."Do that..and this happens" combined with knowing the Four (4) Golden Rules in their sleep.

To turn a person loose with a weapon they're not familiar with.. let alone hasn't fired..isn't safe.

A qik analogy if I may. In my early b'cast days I was a DJ. There was a fund raising event where local "personalities" were asked if they wanted to take part in a motorcycle race. Heck, it was for charity and sounded like fun, so I said, "Sure!"

I'd never been on a motorcycle in my life. It was an indoor arena, packed to the gills..and down goes the flag. I gave it waay too much gas, the bike went up from under me..lands on top of yours truely and soakes me in gasoline. That stuff can really burn in tender areas. My fault entirely..very embarassing..but preventable. A little working knowledge of the machine, a turn or two around the track and I'd a been good to go.

So many lessons here, it's hard to know where to begin...but you get the idea.

My suggestion is: (1) be sure people have at least a working knowledge of handguns before they're licensed to carry them and (2) make it Affordable!!

#2 is very important. I plunked down $140 for my CHL here in Texas. That's an obscene amount of money. Licensed instructors with a strong fondness for The 2ND could Volunteer their time to get licenses in the wallets and purses of folks who can't afford to pay extreme prices for what is fundamentally a right.

Take Care

Lone_Gunman
January 19, 2006, 04:04 PM
i'm NOT comfortable knowing she has a gun.

Who cares if you are comfortable. It is her right to have a gun, whether you want her to have it or not.

The founding fathers put the Second Amendment in the Constitution to protect people like her from people like you.

Vern Humphrey
January 19, 2006, 04:04 PM
Combining two posts in this response:

You speak of a "20 question" test being sufficient. That test would be pretty darn close to useless. What you want is some feel-good measure in place so you can feel safe walking the streets. It sounds very much like certain other arguments I hear relating to gun control.

As I said, I've been in the commercial training business for a long time (and have two graduate degrees in the field.) Most tests are designed by people who have no idea how to design a test. When you look at a test, there are three important questions to ask:

1. Does this test measure anything at all?
2. Does the thing measured add up to a fair measure of the desired performance?
3. How do you know that?

See, the thing is, many states have no testing or training requirement, the streets do not run with blood because of all the lowly untrained CCW people. I live in PA, no training required for a CCW and we issue as many as or more than most places; we have no problems here from untriained people killing others in the streets over pink cell phones.

You have issued the key challenge to those who say mandatory training is necessary -- show us how the streets are running in blood in those states which do not have mandatory testing. Show us the problem before forcing the "solution" on us.

Herself
January 19, 2006, 04:08 PM
[...] convienence store robbery. [...] While the turds were on the way out the door, the clerk shot one of them in the back and killed him. NOW the DA is deciding whether or not to bring charges against the clerk for manslaughter because he was no longer in grave danger when he shot.

Should he be put away or praised? Would you know if you didn't attend at least a class on the CCW laws in your state?
Let me get this straight: you believe the morality of the action depends on the state in which it occurred? Or that the law is always right, and should govern our individual reactions to such matters?
If charged, he will have his day in court.

--Herself

USMCRotrHed
January 19, 2006, 04:27 PM
By the letter of the law, the clerk acted in a manner that is illegal. He technically shot a person who was no longer and immediate threat. If he was taken to trial, I was on the jury, and presented with the case as I have heard it. I would probably find him guilty. Personally, I think he did the right thing. If he doesn't get charged or fired, how many more time do you think his store will be robbed while he is on duty?

Would I have done the same thing or acted differently? I can't honestly answer that. I wasn't there.

I also think that whether or not he gets charged depends on when the DA runs for re-election and what he thinks the public perception would be if this guy was let go or put in jail.

But the point is....I might not have known the law in this regard if there had not been any formal training that covered what is a good shoot and what is not.

thumbody
January 19, 2006, 04:33 PM
i'm NOT comfortable knowing she has a gun.
I can guarantee you Sarah Brady would say the same about you

beaucoup ammo
January 19, 2006, 04:36 PM
The Wisconsin State Journal
01-17-2006

The state Senate today overwhelmingly approved an amended version of a bill that would let Wisconsin residents carry concealed weapons, setting up a veto override fight.

The bill now goes to Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, who has vowed repeatedly to kill the measure.

A veto override takes 66 votes in the Assembly and 22 in the Senate. Republicans control the Senate 19-14 and the Assembly 60-39.

But the Senate passed the bill 28-5 Tuesday. The Assembly approved the measure 64-32 in December, but one Republican was absent and a vacant seat has since been won by another Republican. Those two votes would give the GOP the 66 votes they need.

"We've done our homework," said Sen. Dave Zien, R-Eau Claire, the bill's main sponsor. "There's a momentum. A great majority of the people in this state think they should have the right to defend themselves."

The Senate was the first house to pass the bill in December.

The Assembly amended it later that month to require more training for gun owners, tighten restrictions on carrying concealed while drinking and set up new school zones where concealed weapons would be illegal. The changes drew six Democrats to vote with the GOP.

That vote sent the new version of the bill back to the Senate for final approval. Both houses must approve identical versions of a bill before it can go to the governor.

Doyle spokeswoman Melanie Fonder said the governor is confident his veto will survive. She declined to elaborate.???

wbond
January 19, 2006, 05:04 PM
I agree. Oregon requires a class. Washington does not.

I just renewed my WA permit. I'm looking for a class, but think one should be required.

I'm going to apply for an OR permit. OR does requires a class.

I thinks that's good.

A class should at least cover legal issues, but basic gun handling and markmenship should also be taught. I've heard a great many handgun shooting victims were shot with their own guns after being disarmed. That's another good reason for a class + practice.

The NRA could teach the class for all I care. Whatever, as long as it's a good class.

NineseveN
January 19, 2006, 05:08 PM
IMO, a person should have at least a working knowledge of the handgun's' dynamics: "Do this..and that happens".."Do that..and this happens" combined with knowing the Four (4) Golden Rules in their sleep.

In agree, however should is a long way from must.


A qik analogy if I may. In my early b'cast days I was a DJ. There was a fund raising event where local "personalities" were asked if they wanted to take part in a motorcycle race. Heck, it was for charity and sounded like fun, so I said, "Sure!"

I'd never been on a motorcycle in my life. It was an indoor arena, packed to the gills..and down goes the flag. I gave it waay too much gas, the bike went up from under me..lands on top of yours truely and soakes me in gasoline. That stuff can really burn in tender areas. My fault entirely..very embarassing..but preventable. A little working knowledge of the machine, a turn or two around the track and I'd a been good to go.

So mandatory motorcycle training would have saved you? I'm sorry, but that kind of thought just doesn't bear out in the real world. Someone who is foolish enough to have attempted to operate something as large, powerful and dangerous as a motorcycle or even a firearm without taking it upon themselves to get educated beforehand won't get much from mandated training anyway. Kind of like when you have Biology in High School. You were forced to take it, you probably passed, but can you tell me which fish species can climb trees or what Glucagon is and what it does? Without Google? My point exactly.

A large part of retention and application has to do with maturity and respect (for yourself, the person administering the material, the subject matter etc...) and without that, all of the training in the world won't make you a great motorcycle rider, nor will it make Sissy Picklephone a safe firearms owner...of course there is a difference, there is no constitutional right to keep and bear motorcycles.

wbond
January 19, 2006, 05:09 PM
See the related thread I started before I saw this one.

It's call "Legalities of Self Defense".

I don't claim it to be anymore on point than this thread, but it has some related and differing views about the same subjects.

NineseveN
January 19, 2006, 05:11 PM
Most tests are designed by people who have no idea how to design a test.

Words with more truth than these have not yet been uttered aloud amongst men. :D

Herself
January 19, 2006, 05:14 PM
By the letter of the law, the clerk acted in a manner that is illegal. He technically shot a person who was no longer and immediate threat. If he was taken to trial, I was on the jury, and presented with the case as I have heard it. I would probably find him guilty. Personally, I think he did the right thing. If he doesn't get charged or fired, how many more time do you think his store will be robbed while he is on duty?
As a juror, you have the right to conclude the law itself is immoral, and thus vote as you have already said you "personally think." If you believe it is proper to kill criminals in the commission of their crimes, then you can stand up for that when you serve on a jury. Check "jury nullification."

But the point is....I might not have known the law in this regard if there had not been any formal training that covered what is a good shoot and what is not.
I very much doubt that any of them are a "good shoot;" the only good shooting is the one that doesn't happen. (I'm going to take flak for that opinion, I know). Any time you shoot someone, you are making a very deliberate choice that the person you're shooting at needs to be stopped, no matter what has to happen to stop him.

If that's the case, the law can go climb a tree, for all I care. I'm not dieing just because some law says what I have to do to survive is not a "good shoot." And I'm not shooting a guy I don't have to just because the law says I can, either.

IANAL and none of the handgun courses I have taken could have made me into one.

"It is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six."

--Herself

Woodland_Annie
January 19, 2006, 05:19 PM
Here's my take on the training requirements. Whether right or wrong. I gladly sat through the class because in my state it is basically a class that reviews the laws regarding concealed carry. They give you the information that WILL KEEP YOU FROM BEING SUED. The firing portion of the class is only enough to verify you will not shoot your toe off during the draw.
That's how it was for me. They gave us a written test. I had already answered the questions by the time the instructor came into the room and read the questions and answers aloud.:rolleyes: But I found the studying to be worth it.

I would have done the $125 and 12 hours of training even if it weren't required because I felt it helped me and made me more comfortable with the idea of carrying a handgun. My friend and I are in fact looking for classes to help our defensive shooting even more.

But I'd still rather have it be my choice rather than the state's.:(

If you want to put blame on someone for the requirements, default to blaming a lawyer!I thought it WAS their fault!:D

MN_Strelok
January 19, 2006, 05:22 PM
she looked like she was FORCED to get her CPL b/c her boyfriend made her.

So what makes you think she's ever going to load the thing, led alone carry it?

Sure, plenty of people buy a gun, stick it in the sock drawer and never practice. However, I have yet to meet anyone who actually carries on a regular basis that hasn't sought out training on their own. Maybe I just know a lot of unusually responsible people?

Besides, she's probably more likely to run you down in a crosswalk while talking on her cell than she is to shoot you. Feel better now? :D

pete f
January 19, 2006, 05:25 PM
Just look at all the blood running in the streets of Vermont and ALaska because of the lack of training there.

Should you take some training before you get your permit or start carrying.
YES> but should you HAVE to take training, I do not see that.

I know a woman who was granted an emergency permit, no waiting, after her ex was released from jail and he showed up at her door with an ax. luckily she was not home, but the cops decided that if he had chopped his way into the house, he was likely a risk to her. Should she have been required to wait for the nest carry class?

I think every one should get firearms safety. everyone, just like sex ed or drivers ed in school, on class should be firearms safety. Then when you are 21 OR active Duty Military, you are legal to carry providing you meet the letter of the law. no felony's or adjudicated TRO's, no mental illness or illegal drug use. I do think federal and state law needs to be ammended to allow purchase and possesion of weapons if no adjudicated TRO, OFP's etc are ever held up. (Meaning a restraining order may be filed, but you have the choice to go to a judge and have it rescinded, and erased. some places issue a TRO with every divorce filing.)

MD_Willington
January 19, 2006, 05:28 PM
:scrutiny:

KriegHund
January 19, 2006, 05:45 PM
but, shouldn't some sort of training be done?


Your 21 years old- thats enough for me.

Shouldnt you need training to speak in public places?
Shouldnt you need training to vote?
Etc etc...

El Tejon
January 19, 2006, 05:51 PM
KH, most 21 year olds do need training to speak in public. I recommend enough training so that all "rapper jargon" is eliminated.:D

You know what I'm sayin', gee?

MD_Willington
January 19, 2006, 06:02 PM
In WA State I have enough hoops to go through with the Alien Firearms license, I don't want to have to then go take training for a CPL, I don't have the time or money...

I knew I should have bought the house 15 minutes away in Idaho...hindsight is always 20/20 :cuss:

Double Maduro
January 19, 2006, 06:05 PM
UDUB,

Did you read the brochure they gave you?

You start out saying it is about training then say it's not about training. Make up your mind.

You sound a lot like a guy who pops up here every once in a while, once he called himself "swampfox".

I think you are trolling for a reaction so that you can take it back to your anti group and use it to further their cause.

Have a good life,
DM

Oh, and by the way, ibtl

USMCRotrHed
January 19, 2006, 06:05 PM
As a juror, you have the right to conclude the law itself is immoral,


I very much doubt that any of them are a "good shoot;" the only good shooting is the one that doesn't happen. (I'm going to take flak for that opinion, I know). Any time you shoot someone, you are making a very deliberate choice that the person you're shooting at needs to be stopped, no matter what has to happen to stop him.

--Herself

In the few legal classes I have taken at school, the jury decides only the facts of the case. It is the judge's responsibility to decide matters of law. Once the judge decides that the law applies, the jury takes that law and applies the facts of the case to that specific law.

As far as the "good shoot" comment. You won't catch any flak from me. By good shoot, I meant legally defensible. I've heard it said before that "a fight not faught is a fight won." Good words to live by. I pray my CCW only gets used as an ornament on my belt that only I know about. But I study and train as if I will need it tomorrow morning before I've had my coffee.

UWstudent
January 19, 2006, 06:29 PM
UDUB,

Did you read the brochure they gave you?

You start out saying it is about training then say it's not about training. Make up your mind.

You sound a lot like a guy who pops up here every once in a while, once he called himself "swampfox".

I think you are trolling for a reaction so that you can take it back to your anti group and use it to further their cause.

Have a good life,
DM




Wow, before your accusation of me being somebody else, why don't you read all my post in this thread which would answer some of your questions sir.

I plan on having a good life :neener:

Herself
January 19, 2006, 06:41 PM
In the few legal classes I have taken at school, the jury decides only the facts of the case. It is the judge's responsibility to decide matters of law. Once the judge decides that the law applies, the jury takes that law and applies the facts of the case to that specific law.
Often said but not, in fact, true. Unless you think judges should be privy to the deliberations and private thoughts of jurors?
See http://www.fija.org/ for the general info. At http://www.caught.net/juror.htm you will find their Juror's Handbook, which includes this instructive bit of history:
...the power of jury nullification predates our Constitution. In November of 1734, a printer named John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel against his Majesty's government. At that time, a law of the Colony of New York forbid any publication without prior government approval. Freedom of the press was not enjoyed by the early colonialists! Zenger, however, defied this censorship and published articles strongly critical of New York colonial rule.

When brought to trial in August of 1735, Zenger admitted publishing the offending articles, but argued that the truth of the facts stated justified their publication. The judge instructed the jury that truth is not justification for libel. Rather, truth makes the libel more vicious, for public unrest is more likely to follow true, rather than false claims of bad governance. And since the defendant had admitted to the "fact" of publication, only a question of "law" remained.

Then, as now, the judge said the "issue of law" was for the court to determine, and he instructed the jury to find the defendant guilty. It took only ten minutes for the jury to disregard the judge's instructions on the law and find Zenger NOT GUILTY.

That is the power of the jury at work; the power to decide the issues of law under which the defendant is charged, as well as the facts. In our system of checks and balances, the jury is our final check, the people's last safegard against unjust law and tyranny.

[...]As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

Sometimes the law is an ass. When it is, it needs to be questioned and even set aside. Juries are how we do that in individual cases.

--Herself

thatguy
January 19, 2006, 06:44 PM
Do we need training to exercise any of the other Constitutional rights?

USMCRotrHed
January 19, 2006, 06:48 PM
OK, I see your going to make me do my research and report back. I'll do that, and if I am wrong I will let you know. Thanks for the piece you just posted, I will begin there before I dig up my old textbooks and other materials.

USMCRotrHed
January 19, 2006, 06:49 PM
Do we need training to exercise any of the other Constitutional rights?

I thought about posing the question as: Is English or lierature training required before we can exercise our freedom of speech, or freedom of the press?

Mental gymnastics!

NineseveN
January 19, 2006, 06:59 PM
OK, I see your going to make me do my research and report back. I'll do that, and if I am wrong I will let you know. Thanks for the piece you just posted, I will begin there before I dig up my old textbooks and other materials.

Good to see you taking the initiative, but I expect you to find Herself very much on the side of fact, she is quite correct. Good hunting!

USMCRotrHed
January 19, 2006, 07:01 PM
I concede.

That didn't take long.....
I was wrong, not the first time, probably won't be the last.

I am a big fan of our founding fathers and if one of the writers of the Federalist Papers says so....in a legal opinion of the Supreme Court.....I'l go with it.

Chief Justice John Jay said- "It is
presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, pre- sumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

OK, back to the subject of the thread. I would hope the jury would nullify the law in that case for the clerk mentioned above.

Mainsail
January 19, 2006, 07:07 PM
Thatís funny. I live in Tacoma as well (I think you live there) and when I didnít have to have any training I assumed it was because I was active duty. Iím not sure where I stand on this issue though. Training costs money and the restriction might be considered an infringement on my WA constitutional rights.

Ghost
January 19, 2006, 07:11 PM
first of all, she looked like she was FORCED to get her CPL b/c her boyfriend made her. secondly, (yes, im gonna start stereotyping) she was 90lbs, wore pink everything, chatted on her pink sell phone about clothes and money. then asked why she was doing this again and if it were legal.

now, taking all this.. why don't you guys make a visualization of this.

all i'm trying to state is, i'm NOT comfortable knowing she has a gun. if i saw her today, i would avoid her to be honest.

btw, i did read the pamphlet. i'm not special where i think i'm "above" the average bear.

Hmm, my fiancee wears a lot of pink stuff, carries lots of Hello Kitty stuff (she even put hello kitty grip panels on her Beretta 92) asks a lot of what most people would consider stupid questions every time she is filling out the purchase forms and generally carries herself as kind of an airhead in public even though I'm fairly sure she is not.

She's also in the Army, been deployed overseas in the current dustup, been shot at and missed, shot back, and I would trust her by my side in a dicey situation before I would trust a classroom trained college student with pretensions towards joining the military.

You never know what kind of experience people have just from looking at them. Most of the people I've met whom I would consider extremely competent and lethal do absolutely nothing to advertise that fact and actually make an effort to play down their abilities/competence.

Adding mandatory training to concealed carry permit requirements just further restricts the right to carry to those that have the time to spare for the classes because they are not working 40+ hours a week and those that have the resources to pay for it. Sounds like elitism to me.

Would it be fair to say that since the girl in the above example is only 90 pounds that she has more of a need to be able to carry a firearm than you do since you have six years of brazillian ninja training? :rolleyes:

NineseveN
January 19, 2006, 07:15 PM
six years of brazillian ninja training

LMAO. Sorry, I had to. That one's gonna have a go round now. Pool Boy Drills and Brazillian ninja training. I love this place. :D

GullyFoyle
January 19, 2006, 07:28 PM
I concede.

That didn't take long.....
I was wrong, not the first time, probably won't be the last.

I am a big fan of our founding fathers and if one of the writers of the Federalist Papers says so....in a legal opinion of the Supreme Court.....I'l go with it.

Chief Justice John Jay said- "It is
presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, pre- sumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

OK, back to the subject of the thread. I would hope the jury would nullify the law in that case for the clerk mentioned above.

Now, think about it. Take a good 5-10 minutes and ask yourself, WHY don't you know about Jury Nullification? Why is it that you have been taught in legal classes that such a power/right does not exist?

(if this is a thread highjack i apologize, my first post! :)

taliv
January 19, 2006, 07:29 PM
usmc, glad to see you doing some research on jury nullification. imho, the effort of judges i have met to stamp out jury nullification is every bit as offensive and dangerous as anti-2A efforts.

i can't emphasize enough how important jury nullification is. it's the last legal option before the shooting starts.

and lots of people have gone to jail over stuff like passing out JN pamphlets in front of courthouses. when i was called to jury duty, both cases i sat in, the judge went to GREAT lengths to explain that juries only decide the facts and HE decides the law. :barf:

i'd put as much effort into advancing jury nullification as 2A rights, but people aren't generally interested for two reasons: nobody likes being called to jury duty (it's not like people collect jury cards and go to jury shows and practice being a juror or spend their vacation at Juror Ranch), and second, anymore, people assume the defendant is guilty

anyways... don't mean to hijack the thread... but take more than a cursory glance at the topic.

UWstudent
January 19, 2006, 07:55 PM
LMAO. Sorry, I had to. That one's gonna have a go round now. Pool Boy Drills and Brazillian ninja training. I love this place. :D

well its easy to comment about subjects that touch outside our discussion but really, none of you have made any legitament reasons why we don't need a little test or training when acquiring a CPL.

other than going off topic about how great your wives are or my BJJ, which is stated earlier (this is THR, all your wives probably shoot well).. your excuses are "hey, its 2 hours away and spending 150 bucks".

well, comming from the guy who said one of the students in the CPL class said he was alarmed he couldn't shoot a guy without being in life threatening danger.. then i believe ya'll should sacrifice 2 hours of driving to make sure the people in the city don't run around shooting each other.

also, just b/c you guys don't think you yourselves don't need the training/testing.. does that mean everyone else shouldn't?

everyone is considering me being narrow minded, and saying "hey, how do you know she's not a better shot". well, i stated my opinions somewhere on the first page of this thread and it's persuasive.
if i'm narrow minded, then why am i thinking about the others who desperately need the training? there ARE people out there who don't know their state laws. i GARUNTEE it.

i'm not trying to take away the 2nd admendment.. everyone should own guns. it makes the world a better place. all i'm saying is that having a CPL test or training isn't a bad idea.

it will inform you of your rights and probalby save you from being landed in the pen.

taliv
January 19, 2006, 08:01 PM
uwstudent, if you approached it slightly differently, i suspect the vast majority of people here would agree with you.

e.g. "gun safety and the legal implications of self defense should be taught in High Schools, along with more emphasis on civics and economics, to everyone, whether they intend to carry or not"

your approach, while seemingly noble, practically changes a right into a privilege

NineseveN
January 19, 2006, 08:05 PM
but really, none of you have made any legitament reasons why we don't need a little test or training when acquiring a CPL.

Sure we have, you haven't been paying attention:

If it is required, it is more unconstitutional than the whole permit system is in the first place.

Mandated training does not increase skill or awareness above marginal levels.

The states that have no requirement such as this are not prone to random acts of senseless violence over cellular phones or accessories, and since we do not see this where no training is required, there is no problem to solve. Since training is a solution, you need a problem. If you have no problem, you need no solution.

All of the above was very clearly discussed in this thread.

You can champion and advocate optional trainng, but the minute you start asking the government to require it, you're in the wrong and no friend to firearms owners. If you really cared so much, you could have aproached the couple, struck up a conversation and volunteered to meet them at the range. You didn't even consider that, did you?

springmom
January 19, 2006, 08:16 PM
i still dont think its right to grant people who have no idea how to use or handle a firearm, a CPL.

i don't the training should be 150 dollars.. or out on field with mr. ranger.. but i'll take back what i said about "training".. because even a simple exam of 20 questions would suffice, which would mean the person acquiring the CPL would have a brief knowledge about the state rules.

so, i know a couple of you are thinking its the CPL's respnsibility to figure everything out on their own but i GARUNTEE you that girl i mentioned above had absolutely NO idea what a pistol was.

spare the comments about your 90 lb wives and sisters that fit this girls profile, and how she could probably outshoot me. so what? im sure a lot of girls can out shoot all of us due to their lower center of gravity.. but my assumptions are typically (not always) accurate. this girl was saying things like "why do i have to do this again?".. and.. "is this legal?".

so, for you guys that think a simple questionaire about fire arm saftey isn't necessary, then i guess you guys would feel very secure if this chick pulls out a .45 that she's never shot before and starts aiming it at the first guy she sees that sorta looks like the dude that stole her pink cell phone.

just not right.

1) Texas, my state, does require training, and it is not "driver's ed for shooters". You must pass both a written and a proficiency test. You must demonstrate to the instructor that you know how to load and handle and decock (if one is on your gun) your firearm. You don't have to be Annie Oakley to pass the proficiency test, but it is not a shoo-in. It is $140 which is far too much; but it's good for 7 years, so that's $20 per year which suddenly doesn't seem like so much given what I pay for my hunting and fishing licenses.

2) As some have noted, the question of the states limiting a right mentioned in the Bill of Rights is a serious problem. You appear to want to rescind this woman's Second Amendment rights because she wears Abercrombie (bad taste, yes, but still...) and seems clueless. I expect I seemed pretty clueless when I bought my XD-40 too, but that doesn't mean I stayed that way, or that she will. For the record, I wouldn't be caught dead in the Abercrombie store, let alone the clothes. :neener:

3) The best argument I have ever read for NOT limiting the right to keep and bear arms may in fact be your post today. You think this woman should not be allowed to have that gun until she has passed a class? And who says what's in the class? Who says what's "good enough"? YOU? Me? I sure don't want that responsibility. I am glad that I took the CHL class, not because the state of Texas requires it (although I'm too much a "good girl" to ignore that and carry without, LOL) but because I learned a ton from it. But the class should have been MY choice, not the state's mandate. The Constitution does not give a hoot whether your assumptions are typically accurate; if she is a citizen with the full rights thereof, she has a right as a member of the citizenry, to buy that firearm. Whether you like it or not. And for that, I thank the Founders of this nation.

Springmom

Double Maduro
January 19, 2006, 08:19 PM
udub,

none of you have made any legitament reasons why we don't need a little test or training when acquiring a CPL.


Neither have you made any for why it should be required.

well, i stated my opinions somewhere on the first page of this thread and it's persuasive.


Obviously not persuasive enough, or you wouldn't still be trying to justify them.

then why am i thinking about the others who desperately need the training?

I don't believe you are thinking about anything except stirring the excrement before it gets flung at the air circulation device.

Your arguments make as much sense as your syntax, in other words, very little.
I plan on having a good life

Not starting out too good if all you can think of to do for fun is to exhibit this kind of stupidity.

You started off good enough, you asked our opinion. As soon as some gave theirs to you, you told them they were wrong. Not a good way to exhibit your education, or open mindedness.

DM

P.S. udub, don't bother replying to this post. I am afraid your razor sharp repostes will be waisted, as I am done with you and this thread.

"Brazillian Ninja vanish" to paraphrase. rotflmbfao!!!

Herself
January 19, 2006, 08:23 PM
well its easy to comment about subjects that touch outside our discussion but really, none of you have made any legitament reasons why we don't need a little test or training when acquiring a CPL.
[...]
i'm not trying to take away the 2nd admendment.. everyone should own guns. it makes the world a better place. all i'm saying is that having a CPL test or training isn't a bad idea.

So, tell me, do you also believe we should all have to have training in reading and writing before we should be allowed to own and carry books? Perhaps a Literacy Permit should be required? How about a quick course in bookbinding? Many of those fine old books can be damaged by careless handling!

Do you think we should have to have religious instruction and get a Worship Permit before attending church?

How about a literacy test before we are allowed to vote? --Oh, I know, it will be waived if you already have your Literacy Permit! And maybe we should limit the vote to persons who own real estate; after all, renters don't have a real stake in the community, do they? Or they could prove their fitness by making a substantial cash deposit and receiving a Voting Permit!

And maybe we should have to be tested on our awareness of the law covering search warrants and police stops in order to get a Security Permit, allowing us the "right" of privacy in our homes and persons!

Naturally, there will be a fee for the classes and a fee for the permits -- but it will be open to all. Except for the poor and who cares? And anyone with a police record, and anyone with serious dyslexia, and anyone who hasn't spare time to take calls and apply for the permit during office hours; but we're best off without such random rabble, aren't we?

Aren't we?

UW, we're Americans. We are rabble.

If you have to get a Permit to do it, it isn't a right!

If you have to pass a test of any sort to do it, it isn't a right!

Indiana, where I live, has no test, no training requiements. We do not have random shootings by clueless noobs with LTCs. We do have many people offering training courses -- I have taken a couple, myself. It works. Spending a lot of worry over running other people's lives is no way to live, UW, it will just give you ulcers.

You are trying to take away the Second Amendment, a little at a time. Every bit you help grab to make yourself feel less worried about some skinny gal you've only seen once and all her kin is that much more lost for everyone.

--Herself

Now, the real issue: They make Hello Kitty grip panels? Coolness! Where can I get a set?

Trip20
January 19, 2006, 08:28 PM
other than going off topic about how great your wives are or my BJJ, which is stated earlier (this is THR, all your wives probably shoot well).. your excuses are "hey, its 2 hours away and spending 150 bucks".

Since your quoting me, I have to assume you read my entire post. If you read it again, try to comprehend that I was speaking about how the costs associated with training, licensing, and all the other costs involved, effectively prohibit certain segments of our society from exercising their right to carry.

It's not the 2 hours of driving or the $150. I'm working on having a class held in this area at a local range, which will negate the need to drive, obviously. And the $300 for my girlfriend and I to take the class is already in savings. But what about someone who’s not in my shoes? Should they be disallowed self-protection with the appropriate tools because you feel unsafe?

I don't know you from Adam. Should I feel safe with you carrying on the streets just because you claim to have been shooting for years? Do I need to personally witness your shooting capabilities - inspect a target? Have you recite the 4 rules, and watch you operate your firearms safety/decocker, magazine release and slide stop in a safe manner? I won't feel safe until I do. Turn in your permit.

When do we stop regulating because of feelings - especially when there are a couple litmus tests available (VT & AK). Who's feelings are more important, yours, mine, or the Brady campaigns -- or do we use logic and common sense? This is an important question, because we'll need to set our regulations based on the answer.

UWstudent
January 19, 2006, 08:35 PM
I don't know you from Adam. Should I feel safe with you carrying on the streets just because you claim to have been shooting for years? Do I need to personally witness your shooting capabilities - inspect a target? Have you recite the 4 rules, and watch you operate your firearms safety/decocker, magazine release and slide stop in a safe manner? I won't feel safe until I do. Turn in your permit.



others stated in this thread that they do feel safer having taken the course..
i dont understand, maybe because of your not being clear.
but i'll i'm getting is you wouldn't feel any different standing next to mr. tactical instructer vs. someone who hasn't shot before.. .. during a shoot out.:banghead:

springmom
January 19, 2006, 08:37 PM
KH, most 21 year olds do need training to speak in public. I recommend enough training so that all "rapper jargon" is eliminated.:D

You know what I'm sayin', gee?

"Yo, dawg, like I got a pair of homies under 21 of my OWN, see, and dey drive me BATS with this rap." Hey, that wasnt' too bad for a 51 year old mom....! :neener:

I'd just be happy if they could all learn that not EVERY sentence MUST have the F-bomb in it....:banghead:

Springmom

Ghost
January 19, 2006, 08:50 PM
Now, the real issue: They make Hello Kitty grip panels? Coolness! Where can I get a set?

Here, hers were about $90 for a set of rosewood grips with the hello kitty face and her monogram.
http://members.cox.net/eboyles/Kitty9mm 001a.JPG


http://www.gungrips.net


I for one wouldn't feel safer standing next to a "Mr. Tactical Instructor" if he was stupid enough to still be standing out in the open in the midst of a firefight as that behavior really calls their credentials into question. Personally I try to avoid firefights as much as possible as it isn't any part of my job description anymore.

I think that most people here wouldn't have any problems with a short safety questionnaire as part of the process of getting a permit, but the way you stated things earlier it sounded as if you wanted mandatory training as part of the process which is just a way of restricting access to what most of us view as a basic right.

Sistema1927
January 19, 2006, 09:04 PM
I shouldn't have to take a class to exercise a RIGHT.

If I choose to take a class, or a whole series of classes, to assist me in exercising that RIGHT in a more efficient and effective manner, then that is MY choice.

(Have you noticed that mandatory driver training leads to better drivers? Nope, I haven't either. You can't train the idiot out of the idiots.)

USMCRotrHed
January 19, 2006, 09:15 PM
Now, think about it. Take a good 5-10 minutes and ask yourself, WHY don't you know about Jury Nullification? Why is it that you have been taught in legal classes that such a power/right does not exist?

(if this is a thread highjack i apologize, my first post! :)

These were pre-law classes. Not law school classes. My lack of complete understanding should give that away. During my Civil Procedure and my Criminal Pro class, jury nullification was not covered; however one of the tests did cover the subject of judges deciding matters of law and juries deciding matters of fact. The judge is intended to be the expert on the law and serve as a sort of referee (for lack of a better word) in a jury trial. Since it is much more common for a motion for summary judgement than to have a jury nullification, we spent much more time there.

So...I'm curious, what is your knowledge of jury nillification based on? How did I miss out on this subject?


TALIV, I'm a little miffed myself that this subject wasn't covered AT ALL in my classes. Trust me, I will be doing more research than I already have. I can definately see the benefits of this procedure. I just went on the assumption that the appeals courts were all we had to keep a "judge gone wild" in check.

Hawkmoon
January 19, 2006, 09:19 PM
i still dont think its right to grant people who have no idea how to use or handle a firearm, a CPL.

i don't the training should be 150 dollars.. or out on field with mr. ranger.. but i'll take back what i said about "training".. because even a simple exam of 20 questions would suffice, which would mean the person acquiring the CPL would have a brief knowledge about the state rules.

so, i know a couple of you are thinking its the CPL's respnsibility to figure everything out on their own but i GARUNTEE you that girl i mentioned above had absolutely NO idea what a pistol was.

spare the comments about your 90 lb wives and sisters that fit this girls profile, and how she could probably outshoot me. so what? im sure a lot of girls can out shoot all of us due to their lower center of gravity.. but my assumptions are typically (not always) accurate. this girl was saying things like "why do i have to do this again?".. and.. "is this legal?".

so, for you guys that think a simple questionaire about fire arm saftey isn't necessary, then i guess you guys would feel very secure if this chick pulls out a .45 that she's never shot before and starts aiming it at the first guy she sees that sorta looks like the dude that stole her pink cell phone.

just not right.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

However, as has been pointed out, those old pharts who drafted the Bill of Rights just weren't as wise as you, and inexplicably overlooked writing into the 2nd Amendment a requirement for training or permits/licenses as a prerequisite to keeping and bearing arms.

'Nuff said

orionengnr
January 19, 2006, 09:20 PM
We will be requiring training, and a class, and a license, to be a Parent!

Seriously...each day our society incurs far greater damage day from the last one-and one half to two generations of uneducated, irresponsible, ill-mannered, single-parent-raised, me-first Hellspawn than from all the untrained CHL/CCW/CPL holders in the history of the Republic.:cuss: :banghead:

We will begin the vasectomies tomorrow at 0800. Get in line. Now.

jtward01
January 19, 2006, 09:29 PM
i still dont think its right to grant people who have no idea how to use or handle a firearm, a CPL.

I agree completely. I started a similar thread recently after seeing a group of CWP "students" demonstrate their firearms proficiency at a local range by firing one (1) round out of a .22 revolver. Several of these people had to be talked through the loading and firing procedure step by step because they had no idea how to do it themselves. One woman pointed the gun at the target, closed her eyes, turned her face away from the gun and then pulled the trigger. The instructor handed her the certificate she needed to get her carry permit and she left. Several of the students couldn't hit an 8x10 sheet of paper at 10 feet, but they got their certificates anyway.

This is absurd. If it's too much to require a training course then at least require demonstrated proficiency. Let the issuing agency proscribe a course of fire with a minimum score and allow any NRA certified instructor to administer the test. You pass, you get your permit.

Don't give me any of that constitutional rights crap. Government has the authority to regulate firearms sales and use. That was established by the courts many, many years ago. Requiring CWP holders to meet a certain level of proficiency would be a reasonable exercise of governmental authority.

waterhouse
January 19, 2006, 09:33 PM
well, comming from the guy who said one of the students in the CPL class said he was alarmed he couldn't shoot a guy without being in life threatening danger.. then i believe ya'll should sacrifice 2 hours of driving to make sure the people in the city don't run around shooting each other.

It has been said a couple times already, but . . . in States where there is no required training, people with concealed permits DO NOT run around shooting each other. It just doesn't happen.

I took the 12 hours of training, which included a shooting proficiency test. I don't feel one bit safer because of it. The target was large. A beginner could probably pass the range test, and anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together could pass the written. What I'm trying to get at is that, after 12 hours of training, I don't feel any safer walking around.

I feel that, in my case, the training served no purpose. I'm also pretty sure that the lack of training in other states has not led to a crime spree of licensed individuals running around shooting each other. So why should we have mandatory, State regulated training? As someone else mentioned, what problem are you trying to solve?

Many reasons have been listed for not having mandated training, such as the cost, the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the training/testing process, and the fact that places with no mandatory training seem to do just fine. The only reason I've seen for mandated training is so that certain people will feel "safer" around cute girls with bad tastes in clothing.

WayneConrad
January 19, 2006, 09:44 PM
Don't give me any of that constitutional rights crap. Government has the authority to regulate firearms sales and use. That was established by the courts many, many years ago. Requiring CWP holders to meet a certain level of proficiency would be a reasonable exercise of governmental authority.

I can't resist. The courts started walking on the constitution during Jefferson's lifetime and haven't looked back. Depending upon the very government that has done its utmost to ignore our rights to then define those rights is nuts. Anyone who can read the Federalist papers and other supporting documents can plainly know what it is the founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution and the bill of rights. It's taken the courts years of prestidigitation to convince people that "bear" doesn't mean "bear," "arms" doesn't mean "arms," and "people" doesn't mean "people." But that doesn't make it so.

The courts only get a say in court. When we the people are deciding whether or not the government is acting properly, don't take their word for it.

jtward01
January 19, 2006, 09:47 PM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

However, as has been pointed out, those old pharts who drafted the Bill of Rights just weren't as wise as you, and inexplicably overlooked writing into the 2nd Amendment a requirement for training or permits/licenses as a prerequisite to keeping and bearing arms.

'Nuff said


They never envisioned the urban society we have today where most people grow up having never handled a firearm, where 60 percent of children grow up without a father in the home. In their day virtually every home had at least one firearm, and every boy (and many girls) was taught by their father how to use that firearm effectively and safely.

Their wisdom didn't stop at drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They established the three branches of government with each acting to balance the powers of the other.

The beauty of our Constitution is that it is flexible. The founding fathers established a way - through the courts - that the constitution can be interpreted in different ways to suit the times.

Herself
January 19, 2006, 09:48 PM
Don't give me any of that constitutional rights crap.
Stupid darn Constitution! That's the spirit! That's what made this country what it is today!














Ewww. It kind of is, in fact. :barf:


Jtward, those rights don't come from the Constitution; it just says government isn't to meddle with them. And you correctly report that it has. That doesn't make it right, and it's no reason to encourage more of it.

And "flexible interpretation by the courts" is no way to proceed. Yeeech. Wassamatta, can't the gun-grabbers get an amendment? You bet they can't. And they're getting kicked out of the courts, too.

--H

springmom
January 19, 2006, 09:54 PM
I can't resist. The courts started walking on the constitution during Jefferson's lifetime and haven't looked back. Depending upon the very government that has done its utmost to ignore our rights to then define those rights is nuts. Anyone who can read the Federalist papers and other supporting documents can plainly know what it is the founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution and the bill of rights. It's taken the courts years of prestidigitation to convince people that "bear" doesn't mean "bear," "arms" doesn't mean "arms," and "people" doesn't mean "people." But that doesn't make it so.

The courts only get a say in court. When we the people are deciding whether or not the government is acting properly, don't take their word for it.


Well said. Very well said.

Then there's this:

Don't give me any of that constitutional rights crap. Government has the authority to regulate firearms sales and use. That was established by the courts many, many years ago. :barf: :barf: :barf:

You have just GOT to be kidding me. Just because the government appropriates power, does not mean it has the authority. Authority is a rightful thing; power is simply that.... I have a police force and you don't so I can make you.

We can only hope that some day the Supreme Court will be comprised of jurists who actually have READ and UNDERSTAND the Constitution and the framing thereof. Meanwhile, you might be very happy in England these days... I understand they don't give any of that constitutional rights crap about guns either. :evil:

Springmom


"Don't give me any

jtward01
January 19, 2006, 09:57 PM
It has been said a couple times already, but . . . in States where there is no required training, people with concealed permits DO NOT run around shooting each other. It just doesn't happen.

I took the 12 hours of training, which included a shooting proficiency test. I don't feel one bit safer because of it. The target was large. A beginner could probably pass the range test, and anyone with a couple brain cells to rub together could pass the written. What I'm trying to get at is that, after 12 hours of training, I don't feel any safer walking around.


I never meant to suggest that a lack of training would result in CWP holders committing crimes. I do believe that over time we will see in those states that require no or only minimal training cases where CWP holders accidentally shoot bystanders or themselves, or if they're lucky just miss their intended targets with no harm done. Because so few CWP holders are forced to use their weapons it will take years for any meaningful statistics to be developed.

Perhaps we should stop requiring soldiers and police officers to get marksmanship training. You know, if they want to survive on the battlefield or in a confrontation with an armed criminal leave it up to them to seek out the training on their own. Makes as much sense as issuing CWPs to people who don't know how to handle a gun effectively.

Dave Markowitz
January 19, 2006, 10:05 PM
The posters in this thread have convinced me. We should require training before granting someone the privilege to carry a concealed firearm. It's too dangerous to allow untrained people to carry guns. They might hurt themselves or somebody else.

To make us even safer, we should require mandatory training in how to use a computer to communicate facts over the Internet. Untrained users might promulgate unfounded opinions without any facts to back them up.

It's for the children!

Sistema1927
January 19, 2006, 10:06 PM
Perhaps we should stop requiring soldiers and police officers to get marksmanship training. You know, if they want to survive on the battlefield or in a confrontation with an armed criminal leave it up to them to seek out the training on their own. Makes as much sense as issuing CWPs to people who don't know how to handle a gun effectively.

Flawed logic alert! Flawed logic alert!

We require soldiers and police officers to receive the training that we do because we are paying them to be proficient in our defense. If you pay the piper, you get to choose the tune. They don't train simply to stay alive, they train so as to kill the enemy with great efficiency.

Citizens carrying weapons for self-defense do so on their own dime, and shouldn't have to answer to anyone.

waterhouse
January 19, 2006, 10:07 PM
I never meant to suggest that a lack of training would result in CWP holders committing crimes. I do believe that over time we will see in those states that require no or only minimal training cases where CWP holders accidentally shoot bystanders or themselves, or if they're lucky just miss their intended targets with no harm done. Because so few CWP holders are forced to use their weapons it will take years for any meaningful statistics to be developed.

I was replying to the quote by UW, where he DID say that he wanted to make sure "the people" (referring to concealed license holders) wouldn't run around shooting each other.

As for the length of time for meaningful statistics, I'm not sure what year Vermont became a state (they were one of the first quarters released, so it has probably been a pretty long time), but as far as I can tell they have never in their history regulated concealed carry. They seem to be doing just fine.

Herself
January 19, 2006, 10:09 PM
I never meant to suggest that a lack of training would result in CWP holders committing crimes. I do believe that over time we will see in those states that require no or only minimal training cases where CWP holders accidentally shoot bystanders or themselves, or if they're lucky just miss their intended targets with no harm done. Because so few CWP holders are forced to use their weapons it will take years for any meaningful statistics to be developed.
How many years? Indiana has had no-training permits for at least 30 years. I believe for a lot longer than that but can't find the information right now.

We're nowhere near the top of the list for accidental shootings by anyone, let alone by permit holders.

So you would be wrong and fearmongering once again.

I am sorry you have so little faith in your fellow man. That's the kind of suspicious, uncharitable attitude that gives us gunnies a bad name, you know.

-Herself

Mannlicher
January 19, 2006, 10:10 PM
Well let me tell ya, UWstudent, I started carrying back about 1960, when I was 15. A license to carry was just a pipedream then. The only 'training' I had was from being around guns from childhood on. You don't have to go to 'frontsight' to shoot.

Ralph
January 19, 2006, 10:34 PM
:scrutiny:
"L'homme vivant sous la servitude des lois prend sans s'en douter une ‚me d'esclave."
"The man who lives under the servitude of laws assumes, without suspecting it, the soul of a slave."
-- Georges Ripert, Le Dťclin du Droit, Paris, Librairie Gťnťrale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1949, p. 94

jtward01
January 19, 2006, 10:37 PM
Well let me tell ya, UWstudent, I started carrying back about 1960, when I was 15. A license to carry was just a pipedream then. The only 'training' I had was from being around guns from childhood on. You don't have to go to 'frontsight' to shoot.

So, you're saying you violated the law for many years by carrying illegally?

You may have been around guns from childhood. Hopefully your father or another relative taught you how to use them safely and effectively. Most people today don't have that advantage. I don't care whether a training program is mandated or not, but I do believe a written exam and a meaningful demonstration of proficiency with a firearm should be required for a CWP.

jtward01
January 19, 2006, 10:45 PM
How many years? Indiana has had no-training permits for at least 30 years. I believe for a lot longer than that but can't find the information right now.

We're nowhere near the top of the list for accidental shootings by anyone, let alone by permit holders.

So you would be wrong and fearmongering once again.

I am sorry you have so little faith in your fellow man. That's the kind of suspicious, uncharitable attitude that gives us gunnies a bad name, you know.

-Herself

Since you're in Indiana it should be no problem for you to check with the authorities and find out how many times CWP permit holders have actually used their carry gun to defend themselves. Then find out how many have actually hit their intended targets. Then find out what percentage of those who hit their targets had received firearms training and compare that with the percentage of those who missed their targets who had also received firearms training. That should give us an accurate idea as to the value of training CWP holders.

Until you have that information saying I am "wrong and fearmongering" is simply your opinion without a basis in fact. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are. Why not do the research and find out?

Moondoggie
January 19, 2006, 10:48 PM
I recognize the libertarian aspects to the arguments against requiring classes prior to issuing a CCW. I don't think the proficiency/safety aspect is nearly as important as the portion that teaches about the law regarding application of deadly force in that jurisdiction.

I understand that a CCW and a DL are two different things, but when you take a DL written test what you're being tested on is your understanding of the law and rules pertaining to driving.

Although I already had a way better than average undrestanding of principles of deadly force, my required CCW training served as a solemn reminder of the responsibilities I was undertaking. The average person, IMHO, doesn't see CCW as a responsibility...some do, most don't.

Even in the Marine Corps, you know...."230+ yrs of rompin', stompin, he##, death, and destruction" you aren't supposed to be armed for security purposes unless you have at least fired THAT weapon for familiarization in the previous 6 months AND had documented use of deadly force training within the past year. A signed "Statement of Understanding" is also required. For the uninitiated, the military has more layers of armor plated CYA than you can possibly imagine.

For those that are dead set against mandatory training, how about if the licensing authority provides a video tape/dvd of a lecture covering the basics of the law pertaining to use of deadly force in that jurisdiction??

USMCRotrHed
January 19, 2006, 10:49 PM
He took me out and we shot beer cans with a .22 rifle when I was 8.

My daughter is now 5 and she is a pretty good shot in the back yard with her Red Ryder BB gun, and she always remembers to put the safety on before going to check where every single shot landed on the paper.

I think it is still tradition in some families.



Moondoggie wrote: "I recognize the libertarian aspects to the arguments against requiring classes prior to issuing a CCW. I don't think the proficiency/safety aspect is nearly as important as the portion that teaches about the law regarding application of deadly force in that jurisdiction."


I say ditto!

NineseveN
January 19, 2006, 11:02 PM
I never meant to suggest that a lack of training would result in CWP holders committing crimes. I do believe that over time we will see in those states that require no or only minimal training cases where CWP holders accidentally shoot bystanders or themselves, or if they're lucky just miss their intended targets with no harm done.

Um, you are sadly mistaken. PA has never had training requirements; what you say should have materialized under those conditions hasn't. You are wrong, period. Bring some facts next time. Thank you, I would appreciate it.

BTW, is it just me or did a bunch of "different" folks seem to join in December of '05? If you look at the posts subtly trashing the constitution or RKBA rights, it's mostly from people that just joined all of the sudden and seem to know very little about firearms, CHL's, the law and the 2A...keep that in mind. :scrutiny:

Herself
January 20, 2006, 12:07 AM
[...] I do believe that over time we will see in those states that require no or only minimal training cases where CWP holders accidentally shoot bystanders or themselves, or if they're lucky just miss their intended targets with no harm done. Because so few CWP holders are forced to use their weapons it will take years for any meaningful statistics to be developed.
How long would be long enough, do you think?

How about 70 years? That's how long Indiana has had "shall-issue" carry permits without a training requirement.

--H

Herself
January 20, 2006, 12:21 AM
Misconceptions abounding!
Since you're in Indiana it should be no problem for you to check with the authorities and find out how many times CWP permit holders have actually used their carry gun to defend themselves. Then find out how many have actually hit their intended targets.
Whoa, Nellie! Thats a big leap. The vast percentage of defensive handgun use doesn't involve shooting!

Then find out what percentage of those who hit their targets had received firearms training and compare that with the percentage of those who missed their targets who had also received firearms training. That should give us an accurate idea as to the value of training CWP holders.
...Or it would if that stat was available. No one keeps track of who has training and who doesn't. Why should they?

Defensive gun use is not about shooting bad guysl That's strictly for the movies and TV shows. Defensive gun use is about keeping oneself from being victimized by criminals.

Nationwide, police are around five times as likely to hit persons other than their intended target than are private citizens. (They also do a lot more shooting per capita, often at greater ranges than do private citizens).

Besides, your initial gripe was about safe gun-handling; now you're worried abut marksmanship?

Until you have that information saying I am "wrong and fearmongering" is simply your opinion without a basis in fact. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are. Why not do the research and find out?
Because I don't do heavy lifting for fear mongering gun-grabbers, is why! Come up with numbers proving your thesis, that states which require training have fewer accidents by permit holders than states that do not. Then explain how that trumps the Second Amendment.

After that you can take on preemptive regulation of subversive and poorly-written literature along with silly or wrong religions. Gosh, there's just so much to sweep onto the ash-heap of history, isn't there?

--Herself

taliv
January 20, 2006, 12:36 AM
TALIV, I'm a little miffed myself that this subject wasn't covered AT ALL in my classes. Trust me, I will be doing more research than I already have. I can definately see the benefits of this procedure. I just went on the assumption that the appeals courts were all we had to keep a "judge gone wild" in check.

usmc, while i think it would help for a 'judge gone wild' i really believe it's for a legislature gone wild. i.e. if you've got a shotgun with a 15.9" barrel and the ATF charges you with violation of the NFA'34, IDEALLY at least ONE of the twelve on your jury would think... "hey, wait a minute... that law's not constitutional!" and acquit you.

when a judge takes it upon himself to misinform the jury, The People lose a very valuable check/balance.

frankly, if the concept of jury nullification was common knowledge, i'd bet roughly 90% of people in prison on drug charges would be free.

USMCRotrHed
January 20, 2006, 12:52 AM
I know I was a "just a little" agast when we covered post trial motions. A motion for a judgement notwithstanding the verdict just didn't seem right to me. Why should a judge have the power to vacate a jury ruling if he and he alone believes the jury did not act in a reasonable manner.

Jury nullificaton restores a little of my faith that there is still a little hope left in our judicial system.

Thanks to you and to Herself. I've learned my one thing you are supposed to learn each day. I can now go to bed.

springmom
January 20, 2006, 01:12 AM
I know I was a "just a little" agast when we covered post trial motions. A motion for a judgement notwithstanding the verdict just didn't seem right to me. Why should a judge have the power to vacate a jury ruling if he and he alone believes the jury did not act in a reasonable manner.

Jury nullificaton restores a little of my faith that there is still a little hope left in our judicial system.

Thanks to you and to Herself. I've learned my one thing you are supposed to learn each day. I can now go to bed.

USMCRotrHed, can we bottle the essence of humility in that last paragraph please? And spread it around the internet!!!!!!! +5 to you for that one thing!

(And I agree with you about learning something: I did graduate constitutional law courses, but it was the judicial activist '70s and we weren't taught that either. +1 to those who knew to share it with us!)

Springmom

Herself
January 20, 2006, 02:00 AM
I've done some research on the CDC website http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html getting the "rate" (gun deaths per 100,000) for several states. Picked 2000-2002 data to start. I'm using packing.org for carry-permit requirement information.

New Hampshire (no training).6.29
Indiana (no training)..........11.40
Nevada (training)..............17.75
Nebraska (no data!)............8.61
Mississippi (no training)......17.27
California (training, no spec).9.74
Texas (training)................10.80
Maryland (training)............11.52
Arizona (training)..............17.79
Massachussetts (training)....3.12
Vermont (no training)..........9.58
All U.S............................10.41


If there is correlation between the rate of handgun deaths and training requirements, it escapes me. I don't have time to do all 50 states right now.

--Herself

pax
January 20, 2006, 02:09 AM
Herself ~

Add Oregon & Washington to the ones you research. They've got very similar demographics and similar carry laws, but Oregon requires training and Washington does not. Washington has had shall-issue, no-training carry permits since just about forever.

BTW, I'll go with the original poster on one point: if you have a permit to carry a gun, and don't get training, I think you're a fool.

(But it should be legal to be a fool.)

pax

Herself
January 20, 2006, 02:23 AM
Thank you, Pax!

Washington (no training)........8.92
Oregon (training).................10.47

Any questions from the peanut gallery?

I agree with Pax; if you're going to carry, you should seek instruction. I simply do not believe you should be required to do so.

--H

TABING
January 20, 2006, 04:15 AM
If you're carrying concealed, you better be REAL CLEAR about the laws regarding using deadly force. That was the most important part of the training I received in AZ. Using a weapon should only be the absolute, irrefutable last resort. The law will be on the dead or injured persons side, especially in a situation outside your home.

LAK
January 20, 2006, 08:11 AM
Training?

That depends; if you do not know what you are doing, can not find out what, why, where and how you should - and should not - be doing; perhaps you should get training.

You can carry a handgun in some states without delay, government permission, photgraphs, fingerprints, "background checks", taxes (fees), recurring taxation (renewals) and all the paperwork. Let alone training.
---------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

chopinbloc
January 20, 2006, 08:18 AM
Don't give me any of that constitutional rights crap.

i think i have a new signature line.



let's sum it up for those slow of mind and quick of "feeling."
training = good
government interference in basic human rights = bad

any questions?

Trip20
January 20, 2006, 10:46 AM
^5 Herself. :)

smince
January 20, 2006, 11:54 AM
My sister is also hot:barf:

Sorry, but his comment bothered me more than anything else in this thread.

I must be the only one:confused:

jtward01
January 20, 2006, 12:04 PM
Because I don't do heavy lifting for fear mongering gun-grabbers, is why!

I guess you could call me a gun-grabber. I'm trying to grab as many for myself as I can. Here's a list of what I've bought in the past three years. Some I liked well enough to buy multiple copies.

Make Model (Caliber)

Springfield Armory Model 1911-A1

Colt Peacemaker .22

Ruger KMK-512

Smith & Wesson Model 18-2

Colt New Frontier

Colt Frontier Scout

Ceska Zbrojovka CZ 75 B (9mm)

Ruger KMK-512 (.22LR)

Springfield Armory PX9608 (1911A1 .45ACP)

Ceska Zbrojovka CZ 75 B (9mm)

Smith & Wesson Model 686 (.38/.357)

Ruger MK-512 (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson Model 5906 (9mm)

Smith & Wesson Model 18-3 (.22LR)

Colt Cowboy (.45 Colt)

Ruger MK-4 (.22LR)

Winchester Model 37 (12 gauge)

Smith & Wesson 17-8 (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson 18-3 (.22LR)

Colt Frontier Scout (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson 22A (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson 15-6 (.38spl)

Smith & Wesson 39-2 (9mm)

Smith & Wesson 622 (.22LR)

Ruger 22/45 (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson 745 (.45acp)

Smith & Wesson 5906 (9mm)

Colt New Frontier (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson 617 (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson Model 63 (.22LR)

Henry Model H001 (.22LR)

Colt New Frontier (.22LR)

Colt Cowboy (.45 Colt)

Now I'm going to really make some enemies here.

I'd like to see every potential firearm purchaser required to submit not only to a criminal background check, but also to a written exam and a proficiency test, or show proof that they have completed an NRA gun safety program or received firearms training in the military. Once they'd met these requirements they'd be issued a Firearms Owners Identification Card. The card would be issued by any FFL holder or NRA certified instructor with no copies or list kept by any governmental organization. The card would be renewed every five years simply with a new background check. While the card is valid the holder can purchase as many firearms as they like without having to submit to a background check or waiting period each time.

jtward01
January 20, 2006, 12:16 PM
I've done some research on the CDC website http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html getting the "rate" (gun deaths per 100,000) for several states. Picked 2000-2002 data to start. I'm using packing.org for carry-permit requirement information.

New Hampshire (no training).6.29
Indiana (no training)..........11.40
Nevada (training)..............17.75
Nebraska (no data!)............8.61
Mississippi (no training)......17.27
California (training, no spec).9.74
Texas (training)................10.80
Maryland (training)............11.52
Arizona (training)..............17.79
Massachussetts (training)....3.12
Vermont (no training)..........9.58
All U.S............................10.41


If there is correlation between the rate of handgun deaths and training requirements, it escapes me. I don't have time to do all 50 states right now.

--Herself

Sorry, but these are meaningless as they include persons not licensed to carry. The only comparison that would be valid for this argument would be to compare CWP holders who received training with those who did not. You would also have to limit the comparisons to state by state since the training requirements vary widely. It certainly wouldn't be valid to compare CWP holders in Florida where training is minimal to CWP holders in Tennessee where they're required to qualify on a range.

NineseveN
January 20, 2006, 12:21 PM
I guess you could call me a gun-grabber. I'm trying to grab as many for myself as I can. Here's a list of what I've bought in the past three years. Some I liked well enough to buy multiple copies.

Make Model (Caliber)

Springfield Armory Model 1911-A1

Colt Peacemaker .22

Ruger KMK-512

Smith & Wesson Model 18-2

Colt New Frontier

Colt Frontier Scout

Ceska Zbrojovka CZ 75 B (9mm)

Ruger KMK-512 (.22LR)

Springfield Armory PX9608 (1911A1 .45ACP)

Ceska Zbrojovka CZ 75 B (9mm)

Smith & Wesson Model 686 (.38/.357)

Ruger MK-512 (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson Model 5906 (9mm)

Smith & Wesson Model 18-3 (.22LR)

Colt Cowboy (.45 Colt)

Ruger MK-4 (.22LR)

Winchester Model 37 (12 gauge)

Smith & Wesson 17-8 (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson 18-3 (.22LR)

Colt Frontier Scout (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson 22A (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson 15-6 (.38spl)

Smith & Wesson 39-2 (9mm)

Smith & Wesson 622 (.22LR)

Ruger 22/45 (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson 745 (.45acp)

Smith & Wesson 5906 (9mm)

Colt New Frontier (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson 617 (.22LR)

Smith & Wesson Model 63 (.22LR)

Henry Model H001 (.22LR)

Colt New Frontier (.22LR)

Colt Cowboy (.45 Colt)

Now I'm going to really make some enemies here.

I'd like to see every potential firearm purchaser required to submit not only to a criminal background check, but also to a written exam and a proficiency test, or show proof that they have completed an NRA gun safety program or received firearms training in the military. Once they'd met these requirements they'd be issued a Firearms Owners Identification Card. The card would be issued by any FFL holder or NRA certified instructor with no copies or list kept by any governmental organization. The card would be renewed every five years simply with a new background check. While the card is valid the holder can purchase as many firearms as they like without having to submit to a background check or waiting period each time.

I don't believe you, show us a pic of all of them in one photo, spread out on your kitchen floor.

Most gunnies don't use the full names or long form product numbers (CZ is fine, Smith, S&W, product and/or long-form model numbers?). The only time I have seen this done is when some silly anti tries to fit in somehere and starts talking about their Heckler and Kosh they have at home on the nightstand. I could be wrong, and if I am, I will apologize, but your statements here severely detract from the notion that you are truly a firearms owner, and everything you have said in this last post completely obliterates any notion that you understand the Second Amendment, the Constitution, The Bill of Rights or anything that this site stands for. I don't think you have the right forum and you are certainly no friend to the Second Amendment or gun owners.

jtward01
January 20, 2006, 01:04 PM
I don't believe you, show us a pic of all of them in one photo, spread out on your kitchen floor.

Most gunnies don't use the full names or long form product numbers (CZ is fine, Smith, S&W, product and/or long-form model numbers?).

I keep a list of all my firearms purchases and sales, complete with the dealer's name, address and such, and the serial number of the firearm. I deleted the dealer info and serial numbers from the list before I posted it, but that's why it's in the format it is in.

Never said I still have all those guns, just that I bought them. Some were traded for others on the list, many were sold to pay medical bills.

Here's a photo of my current SA 1911, customized by Robar.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/jtward01/1911sa.jpg

This is my unfired Colt Peacemaker .22, one of only six to leave the factory with a nickle finish.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/jtward01/01mycolt.jpg

NineseveN
January 20, 2006, 01:18 PM
I keep a list of all my firearms purchases and sales, complete with the dealer's name, address and such, and the serial number of the firearm. I deleted the dealer info and serial numbers from the list before I posted it, but that's why it's in the format it is in.

Never said I still have all those guns, just that I bought them. Some were traded for others on the list, many were sold to pay medical bills.

Here's a photo of my current SA 1911, customized by Robar.

This is my unfired Colt Peacemaker .22, one of only six to leave the factory with a nickle finish.

Fair enough, I still have a hard time grasping it, but you know, as I said I would, I apologize.

However, if you are truly a firearms owner, you're worse than a true anti... everything you said in that post completely obliterates any notion that you understand the Second Amendment, the Constitution, The Bill of Rights or anything that this site stands for. A firearms owner you may be, but you are certainly no friend to the Second Amendment or gun owners.

How one can own firearms yet wish to circumvent the Constitution and deny others the very same rights they feel free to exercise is beyond me, and I find such things contemptible above most anything else. These types are the most despicable form of gunowners. If you want others to be removed of their rights, perhaps you should give up yours.

benEzra
January 20, 2006, 01:20 PM
Sorry, but his comment bothered me more than anything else in this post.

I must be the only one
???? :confused:

The consensus of everyone who knows her, including my wife. Nor does it take a great deal of intelligence to formulate an opinion based on the criteria I'd apply to someone I'm not related to, and come to a conclusion that I'm reasonably sure would approximate the results of a Zogby poll on the topic. Good grief, is the concept of an objective opinion that difficult to grasp? And, FWIW, does my wife's opinion that my sister is attractive mean that my wife is sexually attracted to my sister??? Good grief, back up and take what I said at face value. :scrutiny:

smince, if you would please re-read my post. I paraphrased the guy I was replying to, to say that based on his criteria, he'd vastly underestimate my sister as a shooter, i.e. "don't assume a woman doesn't know how to shoot just because she is petite, athletic looking, and wears expensive clothing." I dare say most competent female shooters do NOT wear Mossy Oak/baseball caps/ bib overalls out in public...

NineseveN
January 20, 2006, 01:23 PM
???? :confused:

The consensus of everyone who knows her, including my wife. Nor does it take a great deal of intelligence to formulate an opinion based on the criteria I'd apply to someone I'm not related to, and come to a conclusion that I'm reasonably sure would approximate the results of a Zogby poll on the topic. Good grief, is the concept of an objective opinion that difficult to grasp?

I paraphrased the guy I was replying to, to say that based on his criteria, he'd vastly underestimate my sister as a shooter. Sheesh. :scrutiny:

I just thought you were from West Virginia and left it at that. :neener:

Trip20
January 20, 2006, 01:26 PM
Sorry, but these [statistics posted by Herself] are meaningless as they include persons not licensed to carry.

For the same reason, I feel that these numbers are even more valid for this discussion. Not to mention they're probably the only numbers we're able to acquire.

The numbers display an average between those who have permits, those who do not have permits, those who have training, and those who do not have training.

Since the numbers represent "gun deaths per 100,000" it's also safe to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) the numbers also reflect those persons who actually tried to use their firearm in a malicious way (i.e., criminals who murder). The numbers are very acceptable, especially when considering this.

So with in those low numbers, we have Rob Leatham types, casual shooter types, clueless pink-wearing bimbo types controlled robotically by their possessive boyfriends, and criminals actually trying to kill.

10.29 firearms deaths with all intents, per 100,000, all across the nation, across all ethnicities and social scales... that's not freakin' bad.

Remove criminals and CCW holders with training... and you really think the numbers will prove a point for you? I think they'll go down.

orionengnr
January 20, 2006, 01:35 PM
I don't believe you either.
Post a picture of your sister!
and her phone number...:neener:

jtward01
January 20, 2006, 01:39 PM
I don't think you have the right forum and you are certainly no friend to the Second Amendment or gun owners.

I am an NRA member, had my first real gun at age seven (a Steven's Favorite .22 rifle), took my first deer at age 12, first elk at 16. Decided I really don't like to hunt much (too much walking and waiting, and try hauling 700 pounds of elk six miles to the nearest road sometimes) and preferred target shooting with handguns. Have owned everything from an RG .22 "Saturday Night Special" that was given to me when I was 16 by the father of a friend to a S&W Model 745 IPSC competition model.

That said, I do believe it is too easy to purchase a gun in this country. No, I'm not worried about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. We have plenty of laws on the books now that if they were enforced and meaningful sentences handed down would solve most of that problem. I'm more concerned with the legal but irresponsible firearms owner who goes out and runs through a couple boxes of shells while knocking back a six-pack of Budweiser, or the jewelry shop owner who buys a gun for protection from robbers but doesn't get any training and the first time he's called upon to use that gun sprays and prays, endangering customers, employees and people walking down the sidewalk in front of his shop.

Every law abiding American should be allowed to own as many guns as he or she wants, including fully automatic weapons (if they can afford the ammo :) ) but with that ownership comes a great responsibility. Passing a written exam on firearms laws and safety procedures, and a proficiency test on the range shouldn't be too much to ask of someone wanting to take on that responsibility.

Yeah, I know it's not in keeping with the Second Amendment. But as I said earlier, the founding fathers never envisioned the kind of urban society that we have now, where most people grow up having never handled a firearm of any sort. They expected firearms safety and proficiency to be taught from father to son. Restricting where and how guns can be carried is nothing new. Wyatt Earp convinced the Tombstone town council to pass an ordinance banning the carrying of firearms in most of the town (particularly the area of town where the saloons, gambling houses and brothels were located).

thumbody
January 20, 2006, 01:44 PM
I'd like to see every potential firearm purchaser required to submit not only to a criminal background check, but also to a written exam and a proficiency test, or show proof that they have completed an NRA gun safety program or received firearms training in the military. Once they'd met these requirements they'd be issued a Firearms Owners Identification Card. The card would be issued by any FFL holder or NRA certified instructor with no copies or list kept by any governmental organization. The card would be renewed every five years simply with a new background check. While the card is valid the holder can purchase as many firearms as they like without having to submit to a background check or waiting period each time.


What part of "Shall not be infringed" is SO hard to understand?

smince
January 20, 2006, 01:46 PM
Both my sisters are very pretty, but even with all the Alabama jokes aside, I'd still have trouble referring to my own sister as "hot".:scrutiny:

jtward01
January 20, 2006, 02:04 PM
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is SO hard to understand?

Nothing. I understand it perfectly well. It's just too bad they phrased it that way. Too bad they didn't write it "the right to bear arms safely and skillfully shall not be infringed."

If you interpret the amendment strictly then even gang bangers and the insane should be able to walk into any gun shop and buy a full auto MP-5, no questions asked. Is that what you would like to see happen? Oh, and just what constitutes "arms." Are pipe bombs arms? Surely a few of them set with trip wires around the perimeter of your property would be good for personal defense. Why stop there? What about claymores? A few of those would be great on the Fourth of July, wouldn't they? Where do you draw the line?

GEM
January 20, 2006, 02:15 PM
To the original question - the criminologists have studied this. IIRC - Lott or Kleck (too lazy to look it up) did not find differences between training and nontraining states on various measures of trouble with their ccw types.

I also am of the opinion that people who don't use "I" but use 'i' in written missives should not be able to carry as if they cannot use the standard style rules, they will make bad firearms usage decisions. :D

Finally, no good looking women should be near guns as it drives the gun geeks insane. Read some of the books by female shooters for hilarious descriptions about how gun boys try to 'instruct' them at the range. :neener:

thumbody
January 20, 2006, 02:18 PM
The gang bangers already get them, they don't care about laws.The ones you have to worrry about aren't going to get a permit.They don't get them from stores, they don't go through instant checks and they don't give a rats rearend about waiting periods! The only people affected by gun control laws are the ones least likely to commit a crime!
But for some reason people who feel that they are so much more intelligent than most of us commoners feel that they have to do SOMETHING to make the world a better place. Even if it is coming up with a solution for a problem that does't exist.

smince
January 20, 2006, 02:23 PM
Nothing. I understand it perfectly well. It's just too bad they phrased it that way. Too bad they didn't write it "the right to bear arms safely and skillfully shall not be infringed."

If you interpret the amendment strictly then even gang bangers and the insane should be able to walk into any gun shop and buy a full auto MP-5, no questions asked. Is that what you would like to see

The term "People" in the Constitution means just that: Everyone. Just as it does in the other Ammendments. Or do you have a re-writing of those, too?

If you interpret the Ammendment strictly, we probably should all have an M16/M4, as it is the current weapon of our Armed forces.

Next you will tell us "well-regulated militia" means the National Guard.

If gangbangers or mentally challenged individuals get weapons, that is a State concern, not Federal (10th Ammendment).

And if interested, Alabama has no training requirement for CCW either.

jtward01
January 20, 2006, 02:30 PM
The gang bangers already get them, they don't care about laws.The ones you have to worrry about aren't going to get a permit.They don't get them from stores, they don't go through instant checks and they don't give a rats rearend about waiting periods! The only people affected by gun control laws are the ones least likely to commit a crime!

Nothing I'm talking about has anything to do with keeping guns away from criminals. On that I agree with every point you make. I'm concerned with making certain that the people who legally carry guns have the knowledge and proficiency to use that gun safely and effectively while minimizing the danger to themselves, their family and innocent bystanders.

USMCRotrHed
January 20, 2006, 02:59 PM
The term "People" in the Constitution means just that: Everyone. Just as it does in the other Ammendments. Or do you have a re-writing of those, too?

If you interpret the Ammendment strictly, we probably should all have an M16/M4, as it is the current weapon of our Armed forces.

That is a good idea. It is my opinion that the 2nd Amendment was included so that if and when our government became a tyranny, that the PEOPLE could take it back.

That said, it would be a good idea for the people involved in this militia have weapons able to fire 5.56, 7.62x51 and 7.62x39 ammo. One of these weapons should look fairly nondescript in order to not draw too much attention to your self, such as a hunting rifle, M-14, M-1, or some SKS models.

If you think about the ammo that may be readily available if this "doomsday scenario" does come about, these will be the types of rifles that will be the most useful. Handguns in common calibers would be handy also.

So, yes it would be a good idea for everyone to own an M-16/AR-15/M-4 among others.

This would also help in the case of a foreign invader.

NineseveN
January 20, 2006, 03:09 PM
I am an NRA member,


There has been tons of discussion on this, being a member of the NRA does not a true 2A supporter make. Pulling the NRA (or any other gun lobby) card in an RKBA disucssion is like pulling the race card when discussing welfare, it just doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Your actions and your intentions define you, not who you give $20.00 a year to.



had my first real gun at age seven (a Steven's Favorite .22 rifle), took my first deer at age 12, first elk at 16. Decided I really don't like to hunt much (too much walking and waiting, and try hauling 700 pounds of elk six miles to the nearest road sometimes) and preferred target shooting with handguns. Have owned everything from an RG .22 "Saturday Night Special" that was given to me when I was 16 by the father of a friend to a S&W Model 745 IPSC competition model.

Hunting as nothing to do with the 2A, period, so your interest or disinterest in it is irrelevant. As a side note, I felt the same way about hunting, but I can see how it appeals to others.


That said, I do believe it is too easy to purchase a gun in this country.

Typical daily language of Feinstein, the VPC and the Brady bunch. :rolleyes:


No, I'm not worried about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. We have plenty of laws on the books now that if they were enforced and meaningful sentences handed down would solve most of that problem. I'm more concerned with the legal but irresponsible firearms owner who goes out and runs through a couple boxes of shells while knocking back a six-pack of Budweiser, or the jewelry shop owner who buys a gun for protection from robbers but doesn't get any training and the first time he's called upon to use that gun sprays and prays, endangering customers, employees and people walking down the sidewalk in front of his shop.

Find me at least 5 credilbe news sources where this has happened in the last 5 years, otherwsie you are simply guilty of the same stupid scare tactics used by the gungrabbers.


Every law abiding American should be allowed to own as many guns as he or she wants, including fully automatic weapons (if they can afford the ammo :) ) but with that ownership comes a great responsibility. Passing a written exam on firearms laws and safety procedures, and a proficiency test on the range shouldn't be too much to ask of someone wanting to take on that responsibility.

But it is, because no other right requires such things. If you want more responsible firearms owners, campaign on your own dime and time, start a group, push the NRA to do more about education and safety.


Yeah, I know it's not in keeping with the Second Amendment.

:what: Remember you said that, as it has defined you and exactly who we are dealing with.



But as I said earlier, the founding fathers never envisioned the kind of urban society that we have now, where most people grow up having never handled a firearm of any sort. They expected firearms safety and proficiency to be taught from father to son.

Did they envision the internet? Does free speech not apply to the internet because it was not envisioned? What about mechanical or elecitric printing presses? Televison, radio? Under you decree, giving equal weight to equal rights as it should be, no communication on any of these mediums would be protected under free speech. Where is the difference?

Could the Federal government establish Wicca as the national religion simply because the fouding fathers did not forsee the possibility of so many alternative religions or faiths from other cultures being so prevalent in the United States?

Is our right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure null and void simply becasue the world is more dangerous today than it was then? Or does the whole terrorist scare negate it from the foundation on up?

:banghead:

Restricting where and how guns can be carried is nothing new. Wyatt Earp convinced the Tombstone town council to pass an ordinance banning the carrying of firearms in most of the town (particularly the area of town where the saloons, gambling houses and brothels were located).

Being old or recorded in certain traditions does not make it right. Half-way supporting the Second Amendment is like being "sorta' pregnant", there is no such thing.


You know what, here's what I propose, you want a test? Fine, here it is:

I submit that every single person that wishes to own a firearm must first pass a comprehensive course and test on the Second Amendment, the Federalist/AntiFederalist papers, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution before they are allowed to ever talk about, write about or otherwise discuss or communicate about firearms, firearms rights or any legal or political issue surrounding firearms.

You speak about some blissninny fear that you have no substantial proof of whatsoever about untrained firearms owners negligently killing innoncent folks when my concern is far greater and far more real; gunowners willing to give up the rights of other gun owners and all free American citizens for the sake of some feel-good plight of safety against phenomena that doesn't materialize outside of those fears and the VPC offices (if it did, the VPC would be all over the statistics).

If you cannot speak intelligently about it and support it, don't talk about it. There, now I have just removed your right to free speech, sounds good huh? How do you think the awerful things you've proposed sound to those of us that cherish freedom and liberty above all else, including your unrealistic notion that you have a right to concern yourself and meddle into what other law-abiding citizens do privately. Here's a clue, you don't.

You go ahead and willingly give up your own rights, leave mine the $%&^l alone. :cuss:

Trip20
January 20, 2006, 03:18 PM
Rock on NineseveN. :cool:

springmom
January 20, 2006, 03:25 PM
Both my sisters are very pretty, but even with all the Alabama jokes aside, I'd still have trouble referring to my own sister as "hot".:scrutiny:

All three of my boys have been put off a whole slew of movies, because their sister (just married in October guys, sorry,) looks like Angelina Jolie's twin sister if she had one. Don't ask me where she got the genes.... not from her mama, that's for sure :barf: ;)

But I think she would probably qualify for the description. God knows all the boys' friends went into mourning when she got married.

Springmom

springmom
January 20, 2006, 03:28 PM
Nothing. I understand it perfectly well. It's just too bad they phrased it that way. Too bad they didn't write it "the right to bear arms safely and skillfully shall not be infringed."

If you interpret the amendment strictly then even gang bangers and the insane should be able to walk into any gun shop and buy a full auto MP-5, no questions asked. Is that what you would like to see happen? Oh, and just what constitutes "arms." Are pipe bombs arms? Surely a few of them set with trip wires around the perimeter of your property would be good for personal defense. Why stop there? What about claymores? A few of those would be great on the Fourth of July, wouldn't they? Where do you draw the line?

Nuclear weapons are definitely off the table. This begins to sound awfully odd....

Springmom

NineseveN
January 20, 2006, 03:29 PM
Nuclear weapons are definitely off the table. This begins to sound awfully odd....

Springmom


But most understand that, because we know that there is a difference between arms and ordnance.

beaucoup ammo
January 20, 2006, 03:42 PM
IMO, the 2nd Ammendment deals with a Civilian Force..not a government controlled professional one. "Well regulated" doesn't mean government controlled.

"Well regulated" does mean being well trained in firearms. We train ourselves. Make ourselves "well regulated" by attending CCW classes (at a reasonable price!), by hunting, plinking at the ranch, etc. In the "well regulated" meaning well schooled in firearms context, hunting plays a big part.

Take Care

USMCRotrHed
January 20, 2006, 03:51 PM
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

OK, I don't think the 2nd and 4th definitions fit here.

The 1st definition, in 2A context, means "a well principled militia"

The 3rd definition means a "properly functioning militia"

mi·li·tia
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Here I do believe the 1st definition is the one intended by the framers.

So, a real wordy 1st phrase could read: An army of ordinary citizens who are directed by priciple, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed.

NineseveN
January 20, 2006, 04:11 PM
tr.v. reg∑u∑lat∑ed, reg∑u∑lat∑ing, reg∑u∑lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

OK, I don't think the 2nd and 4th definitions fit here.

The 1st definition, in 2A context, means "a well principled militia"

The 3rd definition means a "properly functioning militia"

mi∑li∑tia
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Here I do believe the 1st definition is the one intended by the framers.

So, a real wordy 1st phrase could read: An army of ordinary citizens who are directed by priciple, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed.

There is some debate on this, but the take that I and others have is that "regulated" in that time period meant "equipped". So it would read today.


A well equipped body of free citizens, being necessary to the security of a free state against tyranny from the government, the right of the people to keep and bear military arms shall not be infringed.

USMCRotrHed
January 20, 2006, 04:25 PM
Then at least the 2 of us agree (and I'm sure many more) that the amendment gives the PEOPLE the right we cherish. You say "equipped", I say "acting on principle". I will venture to guess that we can agree that you must be equipped to act on that principle. Both interpretations must work hand in hand. With principled but not equipped is powerless, and equipped without the principle of a govenment of the people, by the people , and for the people is a mob.

Double Maduro
January 20, 2006, 04:29 PM
jtward01,

Oh, and just what constitutes "arms." Are pipe bombs arms? Surely a few of them set with trip wires around the perimeter of your property would be good for personal defense. Why stop there? What about claymores? A few of those would be great on the Fourth of July, wouldn't they? Where do you draw the line?

All of the things you mention, fit under the category of arms. I would also add any and all munitions and equipment used by any military or government. (I personally want an A10 and a M1A2 Abrams.) After all, if an armed society is designed to protect itself against a tyranical government, shouldn't we have access to the same weapons. We did when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, why not now?

Do I want my neighbor to have claymores around his perimeter? Not especially, but it is his perimeter. It would also make it easier to protect my perimeter.

By the way, many of us actually trust our fellow citizens to do the right thing. I know my neighbors, I trust my neighbors, I expect my neighbors to look out for the neighborhood as much as I do. So far we have not let each other down.

Now on a different note.

Funny how the troll, acomplishing what he intended, has dissapeared, isn't it? He's probably sitting back and thinking.
"Got them 'gun nuts' fighting amongst themselves, and I got some good quotes to post on my anti site, good days work."

(Actually, I don't know if he dissapeared or just changed names.)

Now why don't we all try to get along and go about our lives in peace and harmony?

DM

NineseveN
January 20, 2006, 04:52 PM
Then at least the 2 of us agree (and I'm sure many more) that the amendment gives the PEOPLE the right we cherish. You say "equipped", I say "acting on principle". I will venture to guess that we can agree that you must be equipped to act on that principle. Both interpretations must work hand in hand. With principled but not equipped is powerless, and equipped without the principle of a govenment of the people, by the people , and for the people is a mob.

Oh definitely, I wasn't knocking your reading of it, just offering a consensus from a previous discussion. One minor qualm though, it doesn't give us anything, it records rights we have at birth and restricts the power of the government over infringing on them. But yes, I think we agree overall, the principle is liberty, the equippment is firepower. :D

NineseveN
January 20, 2006, 04:54 PM
Now why don't we all try to get along and go about our lives in peace and harmony?

DM

RANGE TRIP!!!

jtward01
January 20, 2006, 07:48 PM
Funny how the troll, acomplishing what he intended, has dissapeared, isn't it? He's probably sitting back and thinking.
"Got them 'gun nuts' fighting amongst themselves, and I got some good quotes to post on my anti site, good days work."

(Actually, I don't know if he dissapeared or just changed names.)


Troll? What troll?

At least I have the courage to post using my real name, not some silly alter ego screen name.

I'm surprised no one answered my question. Perhaps my earlier wording was too difficult to understand. I'll make it easier.

Do you believe that people convicted of violent felonies and the mentally unstable should be allowed to purchase firearms?

jtward01
January 20, 2006, 08:04 PM
Did they envision the internet? Does free speech not apply to the internet because it was not envisioned? What about mechanical or elecitric printing presses? Televison, radio? Under you decree, giving equal weight to equal rights as it should be, no communication on any of these mediums would be protected under free speech. Where is the difference?

It is well established that there are limits on free speech. The most commonly mentioned example is the prohibition against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but there are many others. A US soldier cannot publicly endorse any political candidate. A lawyer, doctor or priest cannot repeat what they are told in confidence without being subject to legal penalties. If a newspaper publishes something they know to be false they can be held liable for damages. The FCC prohibits certain words from being broadcast over the airwaves (just ask Howard Stern). Internet forum owners can set rules, lock threads and eject members whose posts violate those rules. Free speech is not absolute, regardless of the wording in the Bill of Rights.

smince
January 20, 2006, 08:10 PM
I submit that every single person that wishes to own a firearm must first pass a comprehensive course and test on the Second Amendment, the Federalist/AntiFederalist papers, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution before they are allowed to ever talk about, write about or otherwise discuss or communicate about firearms, firearms rights or any legal or political issue surrounding firearms.

How about requiring this to vote also:D

If a newspaper publishes something they know to be false they can be held liable for damages.

Like this ever really happens:D

I'm surprised no one answered my question. Perhaps my earlier wording was too difficult to understand. I'll make it easier.

Do you believe that people convicted of violent felonies and the mentally unstable should be allowed to purchase firearms?

I thought your question had to do with whether the untrained girl with the pink cell-phone should be allowed to have a CCW permit:confused:

Herself
January 20, 2006, 08:14 PM
Do you believe that people convicted of violent felonies and the mentally unstable should be allowed to purchase firearms?
Twist, twist -- your earlier concern was that untrained gun-owners would not handle firearms safely; and then it was that they would not shoot straight. Now you're down to being alarmed at the prospect of violent felons and the "mentally unstable" bearing arms.

Which is it? Pick one. Do some grunt work to support it, or admit you're a self-panicker.

You have made assertions without supporting evidence, then demanded others allay your fears. Why are you so suspicious of your fellow man?

...As for "felons and the insane," when they're locked up, they lose a lot more rights tan merely keeping and bearing; and if they're out, they've already been deemed fit to mingle with the general population by the sort of Authorities in whom you have such faith -- they are even allowed to operate power destructive devices, the use of which is not a Constitutionally protected right: automobiles!

If you don't like the Bill of Rights, either emigrate someplace where you won't have to worry about it, or agitate forthrightly for change. Trying to weasel-word it out of existance is no fit way for an honest man to proceed.

I also have to wonder at the mindset of a fellow who owns an expensive gun he has never fired and apparently keeps as an art piece. Oh, it is yours to do with as you wish, but that appears to me to be the behavior of someone with a lot of money to spend and no firm grasp of the functional utility of small arms. This is refelected in your attitude towards other gun-owners and would be gun-owners. "I've got mine," you seem to be saying, "so the the dickens with everyone else; if they can't make me unafraid of them, they should not have guns."

Sorry; life is not like that. It's a great big scary world and the only person responsible for your safety is you. Other people have all manner of frightening abilities and devices; their motivations are unclear and many of them are quite careless. You're not home, safe, with Dad and Mom handling the Big World for you anymore. Deal with it. Crooks and crazies will have guns, no matter how many rules, restrictions and regulations you try to erect. They're scornful and/or heedless of such niceities; if they were not, they wouldn't be loonies or bad guys. The only persons your rules will disarm are the law-abiding.

--Herself

NineseveN
January 20, 2006, 08:16 PM
Troll? What troll?

At least I have the courage to post using my real name, not some silly alter ego screen name.

I'm surprised no one answered my question. Perhaps my earlier wording was too difficult to understand. I'll make it easier.

Do you believe that people convicted of violent felonies and the mentally unstable should be allowed to purchase firearms?

Ideally, yes. Once a felon is released from prison, they are no longer under incarceration and therefor free citizens to be attributed the same rights as any free person under the Bill of Rights . You lose your right to unreasonable search and seizure while in prison, but it is regained when you are released from prison. So are all of your other rights for the most part. There is a disparity that I don't really care for in there.

beaucoup ammo
January 20, 2006, 08:29 PM
for anyone ever convicted of a felony... or if you're judged mentally unstable. You can't vote if you've ever been convicted of a felony..ever.

Take Care

chopinbloc
January 20, 2006, 08:29 PM
Do you believe that people convicted of violent felonies and the mentally unstable should be allowed to purchase firearms?

in short, yes. if someone has not paid their debt to society, they should not be free (or alive) to walk into a gun store. have not sufficiently repaid their debt to society or recovered from their mental illness why have we let them out? this is not a gun issue, this is a crime and punishment issue.

your statements about speech are extremely muddled. in your first example, the act of shouting "fire!" is likely to cause real and actual harm to other people. the mere posession of a firearm or carrying of said weapon is not analagous (sp?). it is, however illegal to fire your weapon in a crowded theater and this is a better analogy. you see, government - i.e. the people - has every right to determine that certain ACTIONS are dangerous and therefore can not be tolerated. your second example has nothing to do with constitutional law, but the uniform code of military justice and you still are not entirely correct. an OFFICER or senior nco is not to promote his political beliefs to junior soldiers. we have every right to discuss among our peers and civilians which candidate we prefer. as far as i know, lawyers and priests are not prohibited by law from revealing what they have been told in confidence, but PROTECTED by law from being subpoenaed for that information. they legally COULD tell but it would be unethical and they cannot be required to. the fcc technically doesn't levy fines but "asks" for a voluntary fee for violations of "voluntary" rules, as i understand it, though it amounts to defacto regulations and fines. private rules about speech have nothing to do about constitutional law, either.

NineseveN
January 20, 2006, 08:33 PM
It is well established that there are limits on free speech. The most commonly mentioned example is the prohibition against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but there are many others. A US soldier cannot publicly endorse any political candidate. A lawyer, doctor or priest cannot repeat what they are told in confidence without being subject to legal penalties. If a newspaper publishes something they know to be false they can be held liable for damages. The FCC prohibits certain words from being broadcast over the airwaves (just ask Howard Stern). Internet forum owners can set rules, lock threads and eject members whose posts violate those rules. Free speech is not absolute, regardless of the wording in the Bill of Rights.

You are mistaking the differences between public and private forums and civil liberties with free speech issues. You clearly have no grasp of the law or the BoR. If you have the time, read the following article that I wrote and published electronically back in September. It's long, and I don't doubt the size of this post will annoy some people, but if you read it and still don't get the point, I go back to maintaining that you have a fundamental misunderstanding, the very same one that has allowed the wool to be pulled over the eyes of firearms owners and given free passage to the erosion of our rights.


--------------------------------------------

I have often been asked why I take such a hard line in respect to the right to keep and bear arms.

Some would say it's because I am an extremist or a fanatic, and on the surface, I guess you could argue that. However, if am to be painted with such a broad stroke, let us then paint anyone that believes in any right with all the passion they can muster the same.

The real answer to the initial question reduces down to the simple reality that I feel as though I am forced to. No right recorded in the U.S. Constitution (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html) or in the Amendments (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html) is under attack, or has been under attack such as the right to keep and bear arms has been. In the name of “reasonable restrictions”, public safety or the common good of society, the rights of firearms owners have been faced with an accelerating cycle of erosion since 1934 (see the National Firearms Act of 1934 (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22National+Firearms+Act%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)). And the harsh reality is that some of these restrictions have come from the very advocacy groups and politicians that wear a veneer of support for the Second Amendment and ask us to donate our time and money to the cause.

These days, we don’t see much infringement on the freedom of speech, or the freedom against unreasonable search and seizure, or due process; all amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The government or some special interest groups may try to slink their way past the line on those issues, but they’re usually caught pretty quickly and taken to task on it. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between. The right to keep and bear arms, as it is documented in the Constitution, has had its teeth extracted by self-serving politicians and interest groups to the point to where the right is treated more like a privilege.

You generally have to have a permit to own or carry a gun. If you do not follow specific guidelines, that permit can be revoked. If you commit certain crimes, you will no longer be able to obtain said permit and if you already have one, it will be taken from you. There are laws on the books restricting what types of arms you can own and in every state in the United States of America, you have to pass a federal background check to purchase a firearm, so that the government can ensure that you have not violated any those provisions.

There is no other right that can be revoked permanently from a free man or woman living in the United States without challenge, not one. There is no mechanism to permanently revoke your right to free speech or the freedom from government enacting laws to establish certain religions and inhibit your right to free worship. There is no provision for an American citizen to eternally forfeit their rights against unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause or a warrant (though the Patriot Act is getting dangerously close to that). Due process cannot be forever moved to the side by the government for any reason (though, again, the Patriot Act is coming dangerously close to that end as well). No matter what crime one commits, what acts they engage in, if they are jailed for their actions, once they are a free person living in The United States of America, every right is immediately restored to them, except of course the right to keep and bear arms in most cases. And even if one does not commit a crime, there are restrictions on how one may pursue the freedom in the first place. Failure to act in the manner prescribed in these restrictions, no mater how superficial, baseless or arbitrary, will result in the permanent revocation of your right to keep and bear arms.

Now, some will say, that there is no absolute freedom of speech because you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, so the whole firearms rights issue is moot. They’ll say that you may have firearms, but there are restrictions, just like there are restrictions on the speech you are allowed to engage in. But the example of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater is a flawed argument. That is not control. Misuse of freedoms is not exercising them. The freedom is for one to be able to engage in free speech, but misusing that for unlawful purposes is not protected under the First Amendment. The same parallels can be drawn with firearms. According to the Second Amendment, we have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. That does not mean that we can use them for unlawful purposes such as robbing a bank (against the law with or without a firearm), firing into a public crowd for no reason or shooting others without sufficient grounds for self-defense. This “fire in a crowded theater” example simply does not work because apples are being compared to oranges. You are free to say ‘fire’ all you like. You can even exclaim it in a crowded theater, so long as there truly is a fire and your intent is to inform the moviegoers for their own safety, not to cause a riot or a panic when no such condition exists, thus breaking the law. You are not free to use that word, or any other to commit a crime or endanger others. You may not use provocative speech to incite a riot. You may not use the freedom of speech as tool for treason against the government.

Now allow me to move back to the relationship between the Patriot Act and infringements on our rights, because there is an important distinction to be made here. Even though the Patriot Act does contain some questionable loopholes, the American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org/) is all over that monstrosity like bees on honey. Just check their website and you’ll see that the Patriot Act is daily front page material there. When it comes to the Second Amendment, all we get are “reasonable controls” geared towards preserving or protecting the common good coming from, or being supported by, our would-be champions, the NRA (http://www.nra.org). If you look at their actions or even their marketing, you’ll see where even they come up short on the Second Amendment. There is no such thing as “reasonable control” over a right, none, and all those that advocate it are not friends to that particular right. If only the ACLU supported all of our rights equally and with the same energy and resources, imagine what mountains they could move for firearms owners. Unfortunately, the ACLU conveniently forgets the Second Amendment when they begin making their war cries against infringement. Perhaps if gun control included provisions against talking about guns in public, or homosexuals, Muslims or African Americans owning or carrying firearms, we’d see some heat coming from their cannons on the issue.
So what if the ACLU and the government supported our religious rights like the NRA and the government supports the rights of firearms owners?

“Any person is free to practice the religion of their choosing, so long as it meets the following criteria:

1. It is on the list of approved religions to be practiced. This list will vary from state to state.


2. One must obtain a permit to practice any religion except in those states that have a policy in place for a non-permit system for practicing religion. Most states will have a “shall issue” permit system wherein they may not deny one the right to practice a religion, so long as they are not a felon, habitual drunkard, fugitive from justice, or have some other undesirable trait or history in their past.


3. All religion must remain concealed from public view if one resides in a state that does not allow “open practice” of religion. If one’s religion becomes public knowledge or if they are caught openly displaying their religion, their right to practice will be revoked and they may face applicable charges according to state laws.


4. One wishing to practice a religion that the government deems as being out of the mainstream of what would encompass one’s normal religious needs must pay a fee and register their religion with the Bureau of Religion, Agriculture and Transportation, hereby known as The BRAT. This fee, which we will call a “tax stamp”, will cost $200.00 and only apply to one specific religion, not all religions. For each new non-mainstream religion one wishes to practice, another $200.00 tax must be paid. Religions that fall under this category are those that have any of the following features:

a. Any religion which is not as loud as a mainstream religion
b. Any religion which is capable of influencing mass numbers of people at once, with a single speech from the pulpit or a single piece of literature. Such religions will be referred to as “Religions of Mass Conversion”.
c. Any non-mainstream religion which was created after the date that the National Religion Act (NRA) was enacted; November 13th, 1934.
d. Any religion that has been altered to circumvent any of these stipulations or accomplish an otherwise prohibited religious feature without prior approval from the BRAT and a local law enforcement officer, in writing, with a $200.00 Tax Stamp being paid prior to the commencement of said alteration.
e. Any religion which does not have any of the above named features, but includes features that are otherwise not fitting to the definition of a religion that provides for one’s normal, mainstream religious needs. Such religions will be referred to as “Any Other Religions” and also require registration and a $200.00 Tax Stamp.


The governments, both federal and state, reserve the right to revise these laws as they see fit, with little to no notice at any time. Anyone caught practicing religion without following all of the guidelines noted above may have the right to practice any religion permanently revoked and may be further punishable by law.”

For another funny parody of how ridiculous and out of touch the firearms laws are in comparison to those surrounding the First Amendment, read this previous paragraph I posted back in August. (http://97nde.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-if-aclu-supported-first-amendment.html)

Now, I understand that those examples were extreme, and in some cases, humorous, but make no mistake about the true parallels that can be drawn out in fantasy, but do not yet exist because no other right has been circumcised and neutered such as the right to keep and bear arms has. It is important both to note the hypocrisy and how easily a few pieces of legislation, a high profile self interest group and a couple of eager politicians can distort and molest our fundamental rights. Every inch that we give up or allow to be taken from us in regards to our right to keep and bear arms is an inch that empowers a tyrant, an aggressor or a radical interest group to take away a yard from our other rights. There are no lesser rights, unfortunately, there are rights that are lesser protected these days. That may be the doom of us all.

Herself
January 20, 2006, 08:33 PM
It is well established that there are limits on free speech. ... yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, ... A US soldier cannot publicly endorse any political candidate. A lawyer, doctor or priest cannot repeat what they are told in confidence without being subject to legal penalties. If a newspaper publishes something they know to be false they can be held liable for damages. The FCC prohibits certain words from being broadcast [...] Internet forum owners can set rules, lock threads and eject members whose posts violate those rules. Free speech is not absolute, regardless of the wording in the Bill of Rights.

Let me ask you first: do you believe the Bill of Rights to be a granting of rights?

It is not; it is a list of restrictions on the government. It recognizes preexisting rights of the People, both a specified few and a general statement that those few are not the only rights held by the People or delegated by them to the States.

"Free speech" is indeed absolute -- in venues you yourself own or control.

Let's take your list.
You can indeed yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre; if there is no fire, you may face consequences, both civil and criminal.
U. S. soldiers (officers only?) may not endorse candidates because they are in the employ of the government (and under arms); this is a hedge against the military junta so often found among our Southern neighbors.
The privacy of the confessional is not a matter of temporal law but of Church doctrine; medical privacy no longer exists, due to HPPA; both may still be used to excuse oneself from testifying in court, but can be gotten round.
Attorney-client privilege is still protected...but what did most of our polticians do before running for office? They will protect their own, count on it. There is no legal bar to an attorney ratting out a client, though. He's simply protected if he chooses not to -- and not in all instances.
Slander and libel require proof, and usually proof of actual harm. This is more than mere speech.
The FCC is indeed under the delusion that it can regulate over-the-air speech. Courts have corrected them on this matter in the past and may again in the future. Just because the FCC has been able to do so does not mean it is Constitutional.
Internet forum owners -- and access providers! -- may indeed set rules and enforce them: they own the hardware! This is precisely the same as you setting rules for speech within your own home, or Wal-Mart setting rules for speech inside their stores.
The government is constrained by the Bill of Rights, not individuals or businesses.

They used to teach these things in Civics class. I'm starting to wonder if schools are now having Bund meetings instead.

--Herself

Mannlicher
January 20, 2006, 09:53 PM
So, you're saying you violated the law for many years by carrying illegally?

You may have been around guns from childhood. Hopefully your father or another relative taught you how to use them safely and effectively. Most people today don't have that advantage. I don't care whether a training program is mandated or not, but I do believe a written exam and a meaningful demonstration of proficiency with a firearm should be required for a CWP.

boy jt, you are one bright fellow. You zeroed right in on that. Mo power to ya. Yes, I carried an illegal concealed gun daily for about 30 years. I have no problem with that.

jtward01
January 20, 2006, 11:25 PM
Twist, twist -- your earlier concern was that untrained gun-owners would not handle firearms safely; and then it was that they would not shoot straight. Now you're down to being alarmed at the prospect of violent felons and the "mentally unstable" bearing arms.

I also have to wonder at the mindset of a fellow who owns an expensive gun he has never fired and apparently keeps as an art piece. Oh, it is yours to do with as you wish, but that appears to me to be the behavior of someone with a lot of money to spend and no firm grasp of the functional utility of small arms.

My concern still centers around people with little or no firearms experience and expertise being allowed to have a concealed weapons permit. My comments regarding felons et al were simply in response to the comments of others.

The Colt remains unfired as an investment. The Springer 1911A1 is my "shooter." As for having a lot of money to spend, my wife and I are currently living on $984.00 per month from Social Security and $151.00 per month in food stamps. My wife has Parkinson's, I'm in a wheelchair after ruining my back working as a paramedic. Yeah, we have a lot of money to spend. If our wonderful government ever gets off its ass and sends me the money it owes me, that a federal judge ordered it to pay me, then I've made arrangements to add an M1 carbine to my meager collection.

jtward01
January 20, 2006, 11:55 PM
Folks, I really want to wrap this up. First, I want to apologize for my "don't give me any of the constitutional crap" comment. That was out of line.

Many of you have made well reasoned arguments and we don't have any disagreements as to how the Second Amendment reads and what the founding fathers meant when they drafted it.

We do disagree though on their intentions when they established the three branches of government and gave the courts the ability to interpret the Constitution, and the people a way to amend it to suit the times. They could not have envisioned the society we have today where in most homes the safe and efficient use of firearms is no longer taught by one generation to the next.

Someone made the point that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, that it was written to insure that the people have the ability to stand up to a tyranical government. I agree.

But under the same logic I submit that it has nothing to do with personal protection, either, and therefore requiring training and licensing of individuals who wish to carry a firearm for personal defense does not violate the intent of the Second Amendment.

We all support the private ownership of firearms, we just differ in our opinions of how easy it should be for someone to be licensed to carry one in public. I hope we can agree to disagree and move on to other subjects where we have more in common.

Old Dog
January 20, 2006, 11:58 PM
Wow, am I ever jumping in late to this one ...

I'd just like to say to UWStudent that I'll agree with his statement that all prospective WA CPL holders should get training prior to being issued their CPLs ... IF UWStudent will agree with my premise that people should be allowed to post on internet forums ONLY after they learn to correctly spell all the words they're using ... 'Course, we might not see him around here for a while, then.

To the topic at hand ... I'd submit that most folks in this state (and probably the other states with no mandated training, as well), or at least a comfortably high percentage, who obtain CPLs and actually carry on a regular basis do avail themselves of some sort of formal training, and that further, probably are more familiar with their chosen carry piece and have learned more about the legal issues of CCW, than many in states that require training. At least that's been my experience when I talk to my fellow Evergreen Staters at the gun shops, gun shows, ranges and elsewhere ...

This statement is a little over the top:
I'd like to see every potential firearm purchaser required to submit not only to a criminal background check, but also to a written exam and a proficiency test, or show proof that they have completed an NRA gun safety program or received firearms training in the military. Once they'd met these requirements they'd be issued a Firearms Owners Identification Card. The card would be issued by any FFL holder or NRA certified instructor with no copies or list kept by any governmental organization. The card would be renewed every five years simply with a new background check. While the card is valid the holder can purchase as many firearms as they like without having to submit to a background check or waiting period each time.
Shucks, why stop there? I say that all potential firearm purchasers must have completed at least one enlistment as a SEAL, Special Forces or Force Recon on top of that ....
But under the same logic I submit that it has nothing to do with personal protection, either,YES! Yes it does. Implicit in the background of the Founding Fathers was the understanding that all citizens were responsible for their own self-defense and the self defense of their families and villages.

Herself
January 21, 2006, 12:11 AM
My concern still centers around people with little or no firearms experience and expertise being allowed to have a concealed weapons permit. My comments regarding felons et al were simply in response to the comments of others.
Fret and fuss all you like; it's still going to happen. There's no amount of training and testing that will produce for-sure, 100% safe gun-handlers -- look at how driver's licensing has worked! Note, too, that anyone with the money or credit can buy a car, even if they can't legally drive it. There's no background check and I have never been asked to show my license. Driving's not even Constitutionally protected; why should it be so much harder to exercise my right to keep and bear arms than to buy a car? Just to make you happy? Don't think so!

The Colt remains unfired as an investment. [...] As for having a lot of money to spend, my wife and I are currently living on $984.00 per month from Social Security and $151.00 per month in food stamps.
'Scuse me? You have a fancy Colt stowed away as an "investment" and you are receiving food stamps? Living on Social Security? How's that work, and why aren't you ashamed?
My wife has Parkinson's, I'm in a wheelchair after ruining my back working as a paramedic. Yeah, we have a lot of money to spend. If our wonderful government ever gets off its ass and sends me the money it owes me, that a federal judge ordered it to pay me, then I've made arrangements to add an M1 carbine to my meager collection.
Great. With my tax money.
I'm real sorry your wife has Parkinsons and you blew out your back. Me, I have intractable trigeminal neuralgia and a crummy spine up at the neck -- stuff displaced along with cervical ridiculopathy trying to pinch the nerves. That means I kinda hurt a whole lot all the time and enjoy migraines and delightful tinnitis most of the time and my hands and feet will go numb and/or fine motor control gets snarled* if I'm not careful and don't exercise: we all got troubles. I'm workin' 40+ hour weeks at a skilled trade, paying your shiny-nice Social Security several times over in addition to my own bills; I never bought a new gun in my life. I've never bought much at all new, in fact.

You're -- words fail me. It would be non-High Road to utter them if they did not. There's plenty a person with a ruined back can do other than wait for Uncle Sugar to pass out the Social Welfare checks. ...Like maybe sell off a fancy gun or two to pay for some schooling at a sit-down trade. But that's just what I'd do; you'll have to chart your own course.

I'm done listening to you.

--Herself
_________________________
* Oh, boo hoo hoo. Woe is me. However, that is why I'm such an A-1 ace typist, darn fingers get persnickitty. Pretty snazzy, hey?

Byron Quick
January 21, 2006, 12:17 AM
I stand with Ted Nugent on this issue-I have a permit to carry. It's called the Constitution. I have carried with permission and without permission. I've spent about 4K after being caught carrying without permission.

We don't have too good a track record of legislating societal change. If you want to live in a society that produces responsible and competent citizens then do your duty. Teach responsibility and competency by example. Reward it. Hold the irresponsibile and incompetent up as examples to be avoided by all self respecting people.

We do disagree though on their intentions when they established the three branches of government and gave the courts the ability to interpret the Constitution

Where are the courts granted the ability to interpret the Constitution?

The violent felon argument is a common fallacious argument. One, we should endeavour for a society where violent felons are killed by the victims on the first felonious offense. Two, the surviving felons should never, ever be released from prison. My prisons wouldn't be what we have today. The barracks used during WWII for our servicemen were constitutional. The same lodgings and amenities should be constitutional today for violent criminals. Put a wire strand at knee level and a thick mine field beyond it. Invite them to feel free to walk out at any time.

In our country today, the bar to felons possessing firearms is a danger to all gun owners. Check the numbers of felonies today that were once perfectly legal activities. How long before the Brady Bunch gets the idea of not banning guns but banning gun owners by turning damn near everyone into a felon? Another form of incrementalism.

jtward01
January 21, 2006, 03:13 AM
Fret and fuss all you like; it's still going to happen. There's no amount of training and testing that will produce for-sure, 100% safe gun-handlers -- look at how driver's licensing has worked! Note, too, that anyone with the money or credit can buy a car, even if they can't legally drive it. There's no background check and I have never been asked to show my license.

Never expected it to be 100%, just better.


'Scuse me? You have a fancy Colt stowed away as an "investment" and you are receiving food stamps? Living on Social Security? How's that work, and why aren't you ashamed?

That "fancy Colt is worth maybe $1,500 'cause it's a .22. If it were a .45 then it would be worth considerably more. I bought it when I was still able to work.


I'm real sorry your wife has Parkinsons and you blew out your back. Me, I have intractable trigeminal neuralgia and a crummy spine up at the neck -- stuff displaced along with cervical ridiculopathy trying to pinch the nerves. That means I kinda hurt a whole lot all the time and enjoy migraines and delightful tinnitis most of the time and my hands and feet will go numb and/or fine motor control gets snarled* if I'm not careful and don't exercise: we all got troubles. I'm workin' 40+ hour weeks at a skilled trade, paying your shiny-nice Social Security several times over in addition to my own bills; I never bought a new gun in my life. I've never bought much at all new, in fact.

My wife and I each worked more than 30 years paying into the Social Security system. We earned every penny we get.

There's plenty a person with a ruined back can do other than wait for Uncle Sugar to pass out the Social Welfare checks. ...Like maybe sell off a fancy gun or two to pay for some schooling at a sit-down trade. But that's just what I'd do; you'll have to chart your own course.

As soon as Medicare kicks in I'll be going for the physical therapy I need to get back on my feet again. Until then I can't sit in the wheelchair for more than about 20 minutes without a heavy dose of Methadone or Morphine Sulphate to control the pain. Both meds make me drowsy, unable to concentrate and unsafe to operate any kind of machinery. That's why I haven't been able to do any shooting for more than a year.

As for Social Security being welfare, I assume if that's your attitude you will refuse to accept your Social Security benefits when you reach retirement age?

Enough with the personal stuff. It does nothing to advance the discussion of training, or at least a mandatory demonstration of proficiency for CWP holders.

jtward01
January 21, 2006, 03:18 AM
The violent felon argument is a common fallacious argument. One, we should endeavour for a society where violent felons are killed by the victims on the first felonious offense. Two, the surviving felons should never, ever be released from prison. My prisons wouldn't be what we have today. The barracks used during WWII for our servicemen were constitutional. The same lodgings and amenities should be constitutional today for violent criminals. Put a wire strand at knee level and a thick mine field beyond it. Invite them to feel free to walk out at any time.

And you would pay for all these prisons how? Oh, you don't mind your taxes going up to build and staff them, and pay for the lifetime of food, clothing and medical care for each of these inmates? What a generous fellow you are.

NineseveN
January 21, 2006, 03:35 AM
Enough with the personal stuff. It does nothing to advance the discussion of training, or at least a mandatory demonstration of proficiency for CWP holders.

I agree, I am sincerely sorry you are down on your luck and I hope that things take a turn for the better for both you and our wife. Depsite our disagreements here, my best wishes to you and yours.

rangerruck
January 21, 2006, 03:47 AM
no. this is called indvid responsibility, i have the second amendment, it says i can have a gun, what i do with it after that is up to me, so if i shoot myslef or dont get instruction it is my own damn fault. thinning the herd, i think is an appropriate phrase here. besides, classes and form s and permits, is a really cool way for the state to get lots more info on you than you realize, plus it is all extra tax money that goes to them . i say we scrap all law including the bill of riths , and we write ONE LAW, from now on every law written by congress concerning, one person ,group, race, entity , etc. , now applies to all other persons, race, group, entity, etc. watch how fast the protestors come out when ,though they hate guns , have to pay for the same fees, classes, permits, etc. that you do. this should replace all federal state and local law.

jtward01
January 21, 2006, 03:48 AM
I agree, I am sincerely sorry you are down on your luck and I hope that things take a turn for the better for both you and our wife. Depsite our disagreements here, my best wishes to you and yours.

Thanks, I appreciate that, sincerely.

NineseveN
January 21, 2006, 04:16 AM
Thanks, I appreciate that, sincerely.

BTW, I've been reading up on you at EMTCity, that thread about being armed while on EMT duty was a great read. That Asysin2leads guy is a, well, I better not say. :D

You have some honestly great views, I need to find a way to bring you around to reading the Constitution and BoR for what they are!

chopinbloc
January 21, 2006, 08:09 AM
If our wonderful government ever gets off its ass and sends me the money it owes me...

in case you haven't noticed, there's not alot of sympathy among members here for your entitlement attitude. the membership of this forum is heavily libertarian. btw, that's one of the primary reasons i like it here so much and your views have been largely unpopular.

And you would pay for all these prisons how?

in an ideal (or even slightly better) society, there would be FEWER prisoners because many of today's felonies would be misdemeanors or completely legal. further, many violent felons would not survive long enough to get to prison. even more, of those who did make it, many would be executed shortly after their conviction. they would have a few appeals and a couple years but would not spend 20+ years waiting for us to get around to killing them. lastly, the facilities proposed by the earlier post would be vastly cheaper to build and maintain than today's penitentiaries (just for fun look up the etymology of the term).

I assume if that's your attitude you will refuse to accept your Social Security benefits when you reach retirement age?

what benefits? i'm twenty eight. i'm paying for YOUR benefits, not mine. i'll never see a red cent. think i'm a little angry about this state of affairs? you don't even know the half of it but i doubt you would understand the reasons. i'm not angry that i'll never get paid by social security. i neither expect nor want a handout. i'm absolutely livid because MY money is being STOLEN without my permission to support a bald faced lie.

smince
January 21, 2006, 08:18 AM
And you would pay for all these prisons how? Oh, you don't mind your taxes going up to build and staff them, and pay for the lifetime of food, clothing and medical care for each of these inmates? What a generous fellow you are.

If prisons were actually prisons then it should cost much LESS to staff and feed the inmates than it does now. Then people would really fear the prospect of going, and we wouldn't have the crime rate we have. And if persons were sentenced to the fullest. And no plea bargaining...the list goes on.

Vern Humphrey
January 21, 2006, 12:38 PM
My concern still centers around people with little or no firearms experience and expertise being allowed to have a concealed weapons permit.

If that's a problem, you ought to be able to demonstrate it. You ought to be able to produce statistics that persons who receive their permits in states with no training requirement have a higher accident rate than those with training requirements.

GoBrush
January 21, 2006, 01:28 PM
Iíve really struggled with this question as well for all reasons mentioned about the right of the constitution. But the question I ask is if some bonehead without proper training shoots some curly headed little girl by accident and the local legislature changes laws because of it doesnít that put our rights in jeopardy? Like I said this is a struggle because I donít want government control any more than the next guy but in this case I guess I lean toward mandatory "Training" for CCW permits.

Vern Humphrey
January 21, 2006, 01:36 PM
Iíve really struggled with this question as well for all reasons mentioned about the right of the constitution. But the question I ask is if some bonehead without proper training shoots some curly headed little girl by accident and the local legislature changes laws because of it doesnít that put our rights in jeopardy? Like I said this is a struggle because I donít want government control any more than the next guy but in this case I guess I lean toward mandatory "Training" for CCW permits.

When did some bonehead shoot some little girl by accident because he didn't have training?

Suppose someone with training shoots a little girl by accident, and those same people in the legislature say, "See? No matter how much training they have, they still have accidents."

You can come up with all sorts of "might happens," but to be honest, look at what did happen. Firearms accidents are going down, not up.

IndianaDean
January 21, 2006, 01:38 PM
[QUOTE

in an ideal (or even slightly better) society, there would be FEWER prisoners because many of today's felonies would be misdemeanors or completely legal. [/QUOTE]


Back when we actually used to execute murderers, rather than letting them sit in prison on our tax money, there were fewer prisoners.

Manedwolf
January 21, 2006, 01:41 PM
i just remembered something..

about a year ago i obtained my CPL or CCW permit (WA), and all they did was made me fill out a page or two of paperwork, pay 60 bucks and throw a washington state firearms saftey pamphlet or something at me.

yeah, i realize they conduct a little investigation to make sure you're not medically insane and you haven't been evading the law enforcement recently..

but, shouldn't some sort of training be done?

when i was waiting in line to return the paperwork and pay the money, i remember a dude who was making his girlfriend fill out the paperwork so she could obtain a CCW permit (i remember her b/c she was hot!! :) ) but also, she was wearing flip flops, decked out in abercrombie, weighed probably 90 lbs and will probably be packing a .45 that was purchased from her over protective boyfriend..

i just really hope she has took some formal training on how to use her firearrm. i did, but i've also been shooting since i was a kid since i wasn't raised in the urban downtown of seattle, but more into the country (shelton).

I don't agree with the need for a statement of training, because it doesn't mean anything but that the person has shelled out $$ recently for an Approved Training Course.

Consider this hypothetical, if that were required, always. A person grew up around guns, a parent taught them how to use them from an early age, they can field-strip in their sleep, are an excellent shot and are incredibly safety minded. But...they have a family, and they can't afford much due to lack of income. They can just about afford a used hi-point or something that they need for a job where they have to go into bad areas of the city.

There's no way they can afford the bucks for the Certified Training Course, and they couldn't take the time off from nightshift work, they'd be fired. So that person can't get a CCW.

Isn't that a bit unfair, and doesn't that sort of negate the very equality for the Common Man that's part of why private citizens ought to be allowed to arm themselves?

CCW, to me, should be a right of being an American citizen, period. Once you add more and more restrictions and laws and requirements, (aside from Not Being a Criminal), you're right into the territory the gun-grabbers love.

beaucoup ammo
January 21, 2006, 01:46 PM
Helps to know how to drive if you want a license for that. Likewise, just a basic knowledge of handguns should be required of those wanting a CCW.

However, the price shouldn't be so high as to exclude those who can't afford $140 and up. That's not fair. State licensed instructors who really care about the "2ND" could volunteer their time to help defray the cost. I'd do it.

Take Care

USMCRotrHed
January 21, 2006, 01:54 PM
You said: "Shucks, why stop there? I say that all potential firearm purchasers must have completed at least one enlistment as a SEAL, Special Forces or Force Recon on top of that ...."

I was in a helicopter squadron asan aircrew member (crew chief/door gunner). My squadron was classified as "special operations capable". Does this count in your book? Well whether it does or not, I'm still going to go get recurrent training for my own good and enjoyment.

There is a tactical urban rifle course being offered in my town open to law enforcement and civilians coming up in about 2 months.

thumbody
January 21, 2006, 02:08 PM
http://www.jesseshunting.com/site/iframe.html?href=http%3A//www.jesseshunting.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/5586
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=816&e=1&u=/ap/20050421/ap_on_fe_st/bathroom_gunshot
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002673343_cop09m.html

Double Maduro
January 21, 2006, 07:01 PM
jtward01,

But under the same logic I submit that it has nothing to do with personal protection, either, and therefore requiring training and licensing of individuals who wish to carry a firearm for personal defense does not violate the intent of the Second Amendment.


Wrong.

Oh, and by the way, the "troll" I was referring to is UWstudent, or udub as I call him.

Unless you are one and the same, I wasn't referring to you.



NineseveN,

Range trip sounds good to me.

DM

NineseveN
January 21, 2006, 07:06 PM
NineseveN,

Range trip sounds good to me.

DM

Somehow I know you're gonna suggest I come to you. :(

Double Maduro
January 21, 2006, 07:14 PM
NineseveN,

Somehow I know you're gonna suggest I come to you.

Actually, due to time and distance problems, I was going to suggest more of a "free range" range trip. You go to yours, I'll go to mine and we will both have a good time. If yours has a Ruger P90 to rent, give it a whirl, I would let you shoot mine if I was there. Let me know what you carry and I'll try to rent one of those.

Should be fun, but then any trip to the range should be fun.

DM

jtward01
January 21, 2006, 07:53 PM
When I first started writing in this thread I advocated required training for CWP applicants. But several comments here and in e-mails I've received regarding people who were taught to shoot by friends of relatives, or those who received training in the Boy Scouts, ROTC or during military service has forced me to modify my stance. Rather than require training in safe and proficient firearms use I'd advocate that CWP applicants be required to demonstrate a minimum level of knowledge regarding firearms laws and safety procedures, and a meaningful demonstration of safe and proficient firearms handling and shooting. Basically a written exam and practical test.

Years ago, while I was still working as a paramedic, I was offered a part-time job as a security guard at the apartment complex where I lived. At the time Florida required guards to be licensed, and armed guards had to complete a firearms training course. As I recall, the training (conducted at the old Tampa Police Pistol Range when it was still open to the public) included two days of classroom instruction and one day on the range. Range qualification consisted of 10 rounds at seven yards, 10 rounds at 15 yards and five rounds at 25 yards. At seven yards we had to fire five, reload and fire five, all within 30 seconds. (I believe we were all using revolvers in those days.) At 15 yards we fired five from a right hand barricade, and five from a left hand barricade. The 25 yard line was fired from a prone position.

We used regular police silhouette qualification targets with the kill zone valued at 10 points, so we could score a maximum of 250 poiints. It took a minimum score of 200 points to qualify.

Again, I'm not advocating that CWP applicants be required to take a similar training program. How or where they get their training I don't care, but I do think it would be reasonable to require them to demonstrate a similar level of proficiency on the range.

Vern Humphrey
January 21, 2006, 07:58 PM
Again, I'm not advocating that CWP applicants be required to take a similar training program. How or where they get their training I don't care, but I do think it would be reasonable to require them to demonstrate a similar level of proficiency on the range.

What's the problem this training is supposed to solve?

Since you focus on shooting proficiencey, we can reasonably assume the problem is too many CHL-holders miss their targets when the chips are down?

Do you have any evidence that is true?

Byron Quick
January 21, 2006, 08:05 PM
John,

If you could cast that requirement in stone so that it could never be fiddled with by gungrabbers, I would probably agree with you. The problem is not with a certain level of proficiency requirement. The problem is the door it opens for abuse of the system.

Take FOPA, for example. A bill introduced in Congress by gun rights supporters. Endorsed by the NRA. Amended by a NJ Senator to close the NFA registry. In spite of the fact that machine guns were prohibited by NJ state law within the borders of the state and the fact that only one registered machine gun had been used in a crime in 52 years.

The problem is not in your basic idea. The problems are with the statutory part of your idea, the nature of government, and the nature of people to subvert the political process by any means for the sake of attaining their own goals.

Considered by itself, in isolation, it's not a bad idea. It's only a bad idea when one considers what our opponents might try to do with it.

The basic idea could be subverted to change a shall issue concealed carry statute into a defacto may issue reality. Once that was achieved then it would only be a small step to never issue. Consider Maryland. It's technically a may issue state. Go looking for folks in Maryland who have a permit. California is on the way. May issue is never issue in some counties. Issue only to the well connected in other counties. And even approaches shall issue in others.

With the addition of the question of when to fire, Vern Humphrey has hit the nail on the head. What evidence do you have that 1)Untrained permit holders are shooting when it is not legally justified? and 2) when they do shoot they are missing their intended targets or hitting unintended targets. Where's the data? Either of your contentions would be shouted from the rooftops by the Brady Bunch if such had indeed happened. All I've heard is complete silence on this issue from that quarter.

Is there a true need for the power of the state to be invoked? Or are you just tilting at windmills?

chopinbloc
January 21, 2006, 08:27 PM
allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. it does not say anything about concealed. in many states it is REQUIRED that arms be concealed. this sounds kinda like rights are being "infringed" to me. in az, my home state, open carry is perfectly legal and a ccw permit requires training and both a written and range test. the standards are very (pitifully) low. it seems to me that there is no problem there. want to bear arms? fine. want to conceal them? take a test and pay a fee.

that said (tm) there is a wide variety in training. when i took my course we got a lot of "what if" scenario type training as well as range time. when my girlfriend took the course, it was almost all classroom and of that, it focused mainly on just the law and safety. that is, there were very few discussions of practical application, tactics, threat resolution hardware considerations etc. that was all crammed into the course that i took. i feel like i got alot more for my money. the written and range tests are pathetically easy and demonstrate nothing. so even if the idea of mandatory training is accepted, in reality it doesn't seem to actually do anything.

NineseveN
January 21, 2006, 08:33 PM
NineseveN,



Actually, due to time and distance problems, I was going to suggest more of a "free range" range trip. You go to yours, I'll go to mine and we will both have a good time. If yours has a Ruger P90 to rent, give it a whirl, I would let you shoot mine if I was there. Let me know what you carry and I'll try to rent one of those.

Should be fun, but then any trip to the range should be fun.

DM

Sounds like a plan!

My buddy has a P90, so no need to rent one, I'll shoot his.

My carry is an HK USP .45 Compact if you were so inclined to rent one. :D

NineseveN
January 21, 2006, 08:36 PM
When I first started writing in this thread I advocated required training for CWP applicants. But several comments here and in e-mails I've received regarding people who were taught to shoot by friends of relatives, or those who received training in the Boy Scouts, ROTC or during military service has forced me to modify my stance. Rather than require training in safe and proficient firearms use I'd advocate that CWP applicants be required to demonstrate a minimum level of knowledge regarding firearms laws and safety procedures, and a meaningful demonstration of safe and proficient firearms handling and shooting. Basically a written exam and practical test.

Years ago, while I was still working as a paramedic, I was offered a part-time job as a security guard at the apartment complex where I lived. At the time Florida required guards to be licensed, and armed guards had to complete a firearms training course. As I recall, the training (conducted at the old Tampa Police Pistol Range when it was still open to the public) included two days of classroom instruction and one day on the range. Range qualification consisted of 10 rounds at seven yards, 10 rounds at 15 yards and five rounds at 25 yards. At seven yards we had to fire five, reload and fire five, all within 30 seconds. (I believe we were all using revolvers in those days.) At 15 yards we fired five from a right hand barricade, and five from a left hand barricade. The 25 yard line was fired from a prone position.

We used regular police silhouette qualification targets with the kill zone valued at 10 points, so we could score a maximum of 250 poiints. It took a minimum score of 200 points to qualify.

Again, I'm not advocating that CWP applicants be required to take a similar training program. How or where they get their training I don't care, but I do think it would be reasonable to require them to demonstrate a similar level of proficiency on the range.


If you required this training of all citizens (say in school, maybe high school) and did not advocate it as a restricting condition to getting a CWP, I would fully support you, and my guess is many others in here would as well. The sticker for me is the restricting condition part or getting a CWP, not the training itself or that it would be required in some form, but it should not be a condition to exercise a right.

NineseveN
January 21, 2006, 08:41 PM
allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. it does not say anything about concealed. in many states it is REQUIRED that arms be concealed. this sounds kinda like rights are being "infringed" to me. in az, my home state, open carry is perfectly legal and a ccw permit requires training and both a written and range test. the standards are very (pitifully) low. it seems to me that there is no problem there. want to bear arms? fine. want to conceal them? take a test and pay a fee.

Did you miss the part about the Bill of Rights limiting government only, and that anything not explicitely limited in the BoR is hands off for the government. it's not a list of what free citizens can do, it is the limits of how much government can interfere with our rights. So the fact that it does not say anything about concealed means technically the goivernment has no power to inringe upon it.

beaucoup ammo
January 21, 2006, 08:42 PM
Your last post remined me of something I hadn't thought of since taking the CHL test here in Texas. It was a 1 day event..combining range and classroom with a break for lunch.

Maybe because he had a hot date, or was tired at the end of a long day..our primary instructor all but gave out the answers to the written test in reviewing the procedure following the exam.

Take Care

roo_ster
January 21, 2006, 09:28 PM
...When you advocate a solution, you ought to have a problem. And ideally, there ought to be some connection between the problem and your recommended solution.

I have heard people say, "Well, they ought at least to be able to strip and clean their guns." Hmmmm . . . so the problem is too many dirty guns?

Some people say they need to learn to shoot. So the problem is licensed citizens miss too many felons?

Others say, "They need to be trained in firearms safety." But firearms accidents are going down, not up.

What is the problem?
Hey, what if the problem is that I'd feel a whole lot better about things if everybody who gets a CHL has the requisite amount of gov't functionary-mandated training.

SOLUTION:
Maybe the the solution is a Rx for prozac for the worrier, so the rest of us who don't worry are not effected. Hey, this could work! It is targetted at the real problem, it leaves the rest of the population undisturbed, and the costs fall where they ought (on the worrier).

smince
January 21, 2006, 09:31 PM
Once upon a time, I bought a new 1911. Went to the PD range the next Saturday to test it. A group of officers were there to qualify. The rangemaster said to wait and I could shoot after they were done. A few officers didn't show up, for what ever reason. The rangemaster said I could shoot their qual course if the officers didn't object, and none did. So with a 1911 I had never fired before, I aced their own qual course 98/100 (two hit high out the "scoring ring"). Several barely qualified, and the highest score was 80/100.

Point: Most officers, like most citizens, are not "gun people". Unless you are a serious shooter, you will not practice. So, unless you have to re-qual evertime you renew your permit, what is the use of a proficiency test to begin with? Some of these individuals barely met the requirements to keep their job and are there to protect us on the streets. Ms. Pink Cell-phone is hardly a worry, I'd say.

roo_ster
January 21, 2006, 09:34 PM
You shouljnd't have to have training to exercise what is a human right (http://www.a-human-right.com/).*

Next thing, you'll need SERE school creds not to experience cruel & unusual punishment.

Vern Humphrey
January 21, 2006, 09:42 PM
Hey, what if the problem is that I'd feel a whole lot better about things if everybody who gets a CHL has the requisite amount of gov't functionary-mandated training.

SOLUTION:
Maybe the the solution is a Rx for prozac for the worrier, so the rest of us who don't worry are not effected. Hey, this could work! It is targetted at the real problem, it leaves the rest of the population undisturbed, and the costs fall where they ought (on the worrier).

You have correctly identified the problem and come up with the ideal solution. Go to the head of the class.:D

Herself
January 22, 2006, 06:56 PM
Again, I'm not advocating that CWP applicants be required to take a similar training program. How or where they get their training I don't care, but I do think it would be reasonable to require them to demonstrate a similar level of proficiency on the range.
Gun-grabber weasel-word alert.

Very unlike the strict wording of the Bill of Rights, "reasonable" is astonishingly fluid. Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein believe the fireams limitations they propose are "reasonable." Unlike you, they're in a position to do something about it.

Let the camel's nose in the tent and you'll have the whole camel, by and by. It is only a matter of time. All freedom is "unreasonable" to those who seek to control others.


Elsewhere, jtward wrote "...enough of the personal stuff..." This is pretty amusing, since it was he who first made an issue of his and his wife's disabilities. Don't try to use it as a trump card if you are not willing to lose the hand!

You know, I really do not think it is all that "reasonable" to allow someone with Parkinson's to be keeping and bearing arms, since muzzle control is next to impossible for them; and a man with a severely bad back probably shouldn't have them either, lest he injure himself from the recoil, or flinch with pain at a critical moment and discharge the weapon unaimed. Aren't you glad I'm not in charge?

You may be a saint in many ways, Mr. Ward, but it sure looks to me like you want poor people, stupid people and ditzy underweight blondes to die at the hands of brutes. I'm not down with that.

--Herself

chopinbloc
January 22, 2006, 10:32 PM
ms. herself, if i weren't already involved with a most wonderful person, i would be most enamored with you on the strength of your prose alone.

Did you miss the part about the Bill of Rights limiting government only, and that anything not explicitely limited in the BoR is hands off for the government.

i did not miss it. i prefaced my post by saying that i was playing devil's advocate. i am a libertarian at heart and, to be quite honest i feel that the constitution does not go far enough in some places to enumerate specific human rights. i would prefer to be left the heck alone by government in every part of my private life and feel that government - on a federal level at the least - has only the obligation of providing for the common defense and printing money. i feel this way not because the constitution says so but because that is all i want from .gov.

jtward01
January 23, 2006, 12:52 AM
Elsewhere, jtward wrote "...enough of the personal stuff..." This is pretty amusing, since it was he who first made an issue of his and his wife's disabilities. Don't try to use it as a trump card if you are not willing to lose the hand!

You know, I really do not think it is all that "reasonable" to allow someone with Parkinson's to be keeping and bearing arms, since muzzle control is next to impossible for them; and a man with a severely bad back probably shouldn't have them either, lest he injure himself from the recoil, or flinch with pain at a critical moment and discharge the weapon unaimed. Aren't you glad I'm not in charge?

You may be a saint in many ways, Mr. Ward, but it sure looks to me like you want poor people, stupid people and ditzy underweight blondes to die at the hands of brutes. I'm not down with that. --Herself

I only brought up the personal stuff to counter someone's characterization of me as "wealthy."

You're right about the Parkinson's. That's why my wife had to stop going to the range with me. As for my back problems, I'm responsible enough to realize that when taking my pain meds it's possible I'm not safe to handle a gun. That's why I stopped going to the range more than a year ago. I've never felt the need to carry for protection. I don't even keep my guns loaded at home. Don't feel the need for it. Of course, I do keep about 1,500 rounds of ammo around for situations like New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.

In none of my posts have I said anything about poor people (hell, I AM poor now), stupid people or "ditzy underweight blondes." I believe you're confusing me with some others who have posted here.

Herself
January 23, 2006, 09:56 AM
...I am dropping the "personal stuff" JT; but don't bring it up if you don't want to discuss it. Me, I am something of a gimp, and nearsighted to boot. Perhaps an enlightened government with an eye to the greater good would deny defectives like me the right to carry, too. Lucky for me, in Indiana the "government" is a bunch of grunting cavemen, rife with bizzare ideas like self-reliance and punishing actions rather than possibilities.
In none of my posts have I said anything about poor people (hell, I AM poor now), stupid people or "ditzy underweight blondes." I believe you're confusing me with some others who have posted here.
Nope, haven't confused you with anyone, though it was UW who used the blonde as a bad example.

Mandatory training takes time, costs money, and requires book-smarts of persons who may have little to none of any or all of those requirements. You are quite happy to let them die, be injured or be robbed at the hands of thugs, just so you may feel safer about who is allowed to exercise a fundamental human right. I cannot agree with that; your stance in this matter is immoral.

--Herself

jtward01
January 23, 2006, 10:50 AM
Me, I am something of a gimp, and nearsighted to boot.

Mandatory training takes time, costs money, and requires book-smarts of persons who may have little to none of any or all of those requirements.

I'm glad your infirmatives haven't affected your ability to shoot that new Colt .38 Super you just bought.

If you've read all my posts then you would know that I've modified my stance. Instead of mandatory training I'd be quite satisfied if CWP applicants only had to demonstrate a knowledge of the applicable laws and firearms safety procedures and a proficiency in the safe and accurate handling of a firearm.

If you're suggesting that I would be opposed to arming someone who doesn't have the mental agility to understand the legal limitations of their carry permit or the basic rules of safe gun handling then you're damned right.

USMCRotrHed
January 23, 2006, 01:03 PM
If you're suggesting that I would be opposed to arming someone who doesn't have the mental agility to understand the legal limitations of their carry permit or the basic rules of safe gun handling then you're damned right.


It seems to me that you are confusing a right with a priveledge. It is a priviledge to drive a car or fly an airplane. That is why skill testing and knowledge requirements exist. However it is a right to keep and bear arms, a fundamental right according to the constitution. Why are special requirements necessary to exercise a right.

All of our rights should have the same basic requirments for us to exercise them. If you require tests in order to carry a weapon then you have just given the government the logic trail and precedent to require tests before you can exercise your right to practice the religion of your choice, or the right to free speech, or the right to a jury trial, or even run for political office (hey, maybe we're on to something!). I could go on but I think you see my point.

pax
January 23, 2006, 01:19 PM
... opposed to arming someone who ...
See, there's the problem, right there.

The discussion isn't about whether you would give anyone anything. People already have a basic human right to own and carry around property. That's the default setting. So the discussion isn't about whether you would give people that right, but about whether you would take that right away from them.

You wouldn't be arming them in any case. Not unless or until you start purchasing handguns for strangers. Again, it isn't an issue of what you are willing to give others; it is a question of what you would take from others if you could.

The question is whether you want to make someone a criminal simply for exercising a basic human right while being unable or unwilling to jump through some very artificial hoops. And your answer is yes.

pax

K-Romulus
January 23, 2006, 01:37 PM
Iíve really struggled with this question as well for all reasons mentioned about the right of the constitution. But the question I ask is if some bonehead without proper training shoots some curly headed little girl by accident and the local legislature changes laws because of it doesnít that put our rights in jeopardy? Like I said this is a struggle because I donít want government control any more than the next guy but in this case I guess I lean toward mandatory "Training" for CCW permits.

The Brady Crowd uses just this point when persuading the last holdout state legislatures to circular-file shall-issue bills. All it takes is a handful of "data," and blissninny legislators crow "we told you so." :rolleyes: Better to head them off at the pass . . . training standards for security guards should be the same whether you're guarding the local Safeway or your own family.


http://www.bradycampaign(dot)org/facts/issues/?page=ccw

Do You Feel Safer Sitting Next to Someone Carrying a Gun?

Many people say no to that question, and for good reason. Most people who have permits to carry concealed weapons - people who are not law enforcement officers - have limited training and undergo less testing than even a novice police recruit. Yet they are led to believe that, given a dangerous situation, they will use deadly force with the same care and consideration that police officers will. Once a bullet leaves a gun, who is to say that it will stop only a criminal? . . .

(emphasis in original)

Herself
January 23, 2006, 03:20 PM
I'm glad your infirmatives haven't affected your ability to shoot that new Colt .38 Super you just bought.
No, they haven't. But the Colt is very far from new. It's a pre-series 70, one of those "guns bought and left in a sock drawer" that some anti-gun gun-owners like to look askance at. The socks were good to it.
I don't buy new stuff. Can't afford it.
I operate that gun well enough to suit myself and not so badly that it scares people at the range; what more could one ask?

If you've read all my posts then you would know that I've modified my stance. Instead of mandatory training I'd be quite satisfied if CWP applicants only had to demonstrate a knowledge of the applicable laws and firearms safety procedures and a proficiency in the safe and accurate handling of a firearm.
Good heavens, JW, have you even read "the applicable laws" at the State and Federal level? Few persons outside the legal profession have time to swot the law. Perhaps we ought to be required to do the same to operate an automobile, too, instead of picking up a few simple rules of the road? Have you? --But driving is not a basic right; the keeping and bearing of arms is.
And as for "proficiency," are you sure you want to disarm the 80-year-old Granny who needs a .38 revolver to keep the wolves at bay, but who cannot hit the broad side of a barn at 20'? Why? What've you got against Granny?
"Safety procedures:" some people won't follow them. Think of it as evolution in action! But they are far from secret. Most gunnies will share them unasked and every owner's manual, darn near every publication about guns, has the Big Four Rules.

The vast majority of persons choosing to carry do learn safe gun-handling, they pick up the basic rules of carry and when to shoot or run in their State and they at least learn which end the bullets come out; and they do this without a bunch of fiddlin' laws standing between them and their innate right if self-defense.

You want to disarm the imperfect. You may not understand your goal as that but once begun, it only has one end: disarming victims, starting with the halt, the lame, the weak, the clumsy, the elderly, the poor and the slow. I really expected more compassion from a former EMT!

--Herself

Vern Humphrey
January 23, 2006, 03:28 PM
The vast majority of persons choosingto cary do learn safe gun-handling, they pick up the basic rules of carry and when to shoot or run in their State and they at least learn which end the bullets come out; and they do this without a bunch of fiddlin' laws standing between them and their innate right if self-defense.

You want to disarm the imperfect. You may not understand your goal as that but once begun, it only has one end: disarming victims, staring with the halt, the lame, the weak, the clumsy, the elderly, the poor and the slow. I really expected more compassion from a former EMT!

--Herself

You're right. I know I sound like a broken record, but I'll say it again to those who are for mandatory training -- show me the problem!

Show me the statistics that show CCW-holders have more accidents, commit more crimes, or do anything at all bad at a greater rate than the general population.

Double Maduro
January 23, 2006, 04:52 PM
See, there's the problem, right there.

The discussion isn't about whether you would give anyone anything. People already have a basic human right to own and carry around property. That's the default setting. So the discussion isn't about whether you would give people that right, but about whether you would take that right away from them.

You wouldn't be arming them in any case. Not unless or until you start purchasing handguns for strangers. Again, it isn't an issue of what you are willing to give others; it is a question of what you would take from others if you could.

The question is whether you want to make someone a criminal simply for exercising a basic human right while being unable or unwilling to jump through some very artificial hoops. And your answer is yes.

pax

+1

As usuall, you have cut right to the heart of the matter and explained it so that even the reasoning impaired and the anti's can understand it. That is, if they'll actually read it and think about what you said.

DM

Correia
January 23, 2006, 05:20 PM
Late to this discussion, but I just volunteered to be called upon as a CCW instructor in this state to testify in favor of Alaska/Vermont style carry before the state legislature. Don't know if I'll be the one that testifys or not, but I look forward to doing so if asked.

Utah has a training requirement. Apparently some CCW instructors are prepared to testify against losing the training requirment. (Why? My guess, loss of income, but justified by the arguments of the pro-mandatory training folks on this thread.)

In my experience from the other side of the table, regardless of what training is required, the responsible will be responsible, and morons will be really well behaved during my class, and then go back to being themselves five minutes after I sign off on their application.

I'm all about training, but it should be voluntary, not mandatory.

Vern Humphrey
January 23, 2006, 07:37 PM
Late to this discussion, but I just volunteered to be called upon as a CCW instructor in this state to testify in favor of Alaska/Vermont style carry before the state legislature. Don't know if I'll be the one that testifys or not, but I look forward to doing so if asked.

Utah has a training requirement. Apparently some CCW instructors are prepared to testify against losing the training requirment. (Why? My guess, loss of income, but justified by the arguments of the pro-mandatory training folks on this thread.)

In my experience from the other side of the table, regardless of what training is required, the responsible will be responsible, and morons will be really well behaved during my class, and then go back to being themselves five minutes after I sign off on their application.

I'm all about training, but it should be voluntary, not mandatory.

And, if I may be so bold as to suggest a theme for your testimony:

In every state when shall-issue laws are debated, those opposed make dire predictions -- there will be shootouts for parking spaces, the crime rate will soar, and so on. Those predictions never come true. Never. Not in this state or any state that has passed a shall-issue law.

Let us not make the same mistake now. Let us not waste time with the imaginative predictions of those who are in no position to know. Instead, let us go and look for ourselves. Let us look at Vermont and Alaska where neither training nor licenses are required. What do we see there?

We see no increase in crime, or in shootings, accidental or otherwise. And we won't see any dire consequences here, either.

Correia
January 23, 2006, 08:21 PM
Vern, that pretty much says it, doesn't it? :)

Vern Humphrey
January 23, 2006, 08:25 PM
Vern, that pretty much says it, doesn't it? :)

Yes. Of course, there are people who will deny that to their dying breath.:rolleyes:

jtward01
January 24, 2006, 10:44 AM
And as for "proficiency," are you sure you want to disarm the 80-year-old Granny who needs a .38 revolver to keep the wolves at bay, but who cannot hit the broad side of a barn at 20'? Why? What've you got against Granny?

I just hope to God she never has to pull that .38 out in public, 'cause if she's as unskilled as you claim she'll be at least as great a danger to the innocents around her as she is to the "wolves."

Remember, I watched a CWP student point the gun down range, close her eyes, turn her face away and then pull the trigger. She still got her certificate of completion for the class. Are you saying you'd like to be walking to your car in the mall parking lot with your children when this woman pulls out her carry gun to fend off a carjacker and starts blasting away with her eyes closed?

Henry Bowman
January 24, 2006, 11:39 AM
Remember, I watched a CWP student point the gun down range, close her eyes, turn her face away and then pull the trigger. She still got her certificate of completion for the class. Are you saying you'd like to be walking to your car in the mall parking lot with your children when this woman pulls out her carry gun to fend off a carjacker and starts blasting away with her eyes closed?A person like that is no less dangerous simply driving her car. I'm not saying that I'd "like to be walking to my car in the mall parking lot with my children when this woman pulls out her carry gun to fend off a carjacker and starts blasting away with her eyes closed," but I'm willing to accept that risk as part of the price of freedom and prefer it to the alternative (which unfairly and unjustly restricts my rights).

Trip20
January 24, 2006, 11:51 AM
So from what I gather, have to be good at something before your allowed to do it. That is, you can't protect yourself unless your proficient. To do so will be a felony. This goes for firearms, and fist fights, right?

Welcome to America.

I don't think so.

An 80yr old grandmother can't hit the broad side of a barn, I don't care - she should still have the same right you and I have. You need to have faith that by her own accord, or through a family member, she'll receive range time, training, and encouragement. But even if she does not, being a bad shot by no means should require you to surrender your life.

Maybe this old lady is better at you in negotiations, de-escalating situations, or avoiding them all together. Maybe because you fall short in these areas we should jerk your permit? Crap, now we have to develope another test.

She's less of a danger to the community than a 21yr old hot-headed male who goes around instigating fights because now he's "packin' heat." But he's ok with you because he's a good shot, knows how to function his firearm safely, was able to pass a background check, pass a written test, and pass a range certification.

Makes perfect sense. :barf:

NineseveN
January 24, 2006, 12:01 PM
I just hope to God she never has to pull that .38 out in public, 'cause if she's as unskilled as you claim she'll be at least as great a danger to the innocents around her as she is to the "wolves."

I don't know what I can say to impress upon you that training is not the perfect solution. What do we do with people that just can't absorb the material? The people that get CWP's and then get training on their own do so because they have a desire to improve, those that don't, don't.

Correia is/was an instructor, and if you talk to most instructors, they will tell you the same thing that he did, "the responsible will be responsible, and morons will be really well behaved during my class, and then go back to being themselves five minutes after I sign off on their application", so how does that solve the problem you are so concerned with that hasn't materialized in the real world? Telling someone what the law is won't ensure that they follow it (or else none of us would speed or roll through stop signs now would we? We did pass a test telling us not to, didn't we?). Telling someone how to do something in the classroom does not ensure that they will follow such instruction outside of the classroom. Again we're back to the responsible folks will (which they already do without mandatory training) and the morons won't.

You have an uphill battle here and you're not gaining any ground without providing the following:

Proof that the lack of required training is a danger and causes the types of problems you have used as examples of your argument.

Proof that testing someone ensures that they will be safe even if they have no desire to absorb and apply the material outside of the classroom/testing environment.

I have given you an example of how your premise on the latter fails every single day, hundreds of thousands of times, every time someone gets a driver's license.


Remember, I watched a CWP student point the gun down range, close her eyes, turn her face away and then pull the trigger. She still got her certificate of completion for the class. Are you saying you'd like to be walking to your car in the mall parking lot with your children when this woman pulls out her carry gun to fend off a carjacker and starts blasting away with her eyes closed?

Hypothetical material won't win this argument. What we do have factual evidence of is that every time you give the government more control over a right, you lose some of that right. Any time you restrict our rights or advocate removing them 'for the good of the community' or for 'safety's sake', you are setting yourself up to be raped. In 1995, when Act 17 was passed (having been supported by Sportsmen organizations, the NRA and the HCI types) I wrote a few editorials that were distributed locally professing that this very thing could and would happen. (http://www.gunownersalliance.com/r-laing.htm)

Folks kept giving me the same BS arguments as you have here. This was supposed to make us safer, but all it did was provide leverage for the JBT's to abuse the system and restrict or revoke our right under both the US and the PA constitution.


I am all for some form of mandatory training, provided it has no bearing on whether or not you may exercise your rights. I want Vermont Carry here in PA where such discussions would be moot in the first place. Again, if you were to propose such training for everyone, say in High Schools or Middle Schools, I would be all for it, so long as whether or not you passed the course had no bearing on being able to exercise a right.

Iím sorry if I made little sense here, Iím battling a lack of sleep and the onset of what appears to be an annoying head cold. I canít think very well today.

jtward01
January 24, 2006, 08:07 PM
An 80yr old grandmother can't hit the broad side of a barn, I don't care - she should still have the same right you and I have. You need to have faith that by her own accord, or through a family member, she'll receive range time, training, and encouragement. But even if she does not, being a bad shot by no means should require you to surrender your life.

Not being allowed to carry a firearm in public is a long way from surrendering your life. I haven't heard anything about the mass slaughter of people in states without concealed carry, have you?

Maybe this old lady is better at you in negotiations, de-escalating situations, or avoiding them all together.

And what, exactly, would those skills have to do with carrying a gun in public except make it less likely for her to need a gun?

She's less of a danger to the community than a 21yr old hot-headed male who goes around instigating fights because now he's "packin' heat." But he's ok with you because he's a good shot, knows how to function his firearm safely, was able to pass a background check, pass a written test, and pass a range certification.

You're right, she probably is less of a danger to the public, but that doesn't mean I'm "OK" with the "21yr old hotheaded male . . . ."

jtward01
January 24, 2006, 08:25 PM
I don't know what I can say to impress upon you that training is not the perfect solution.

I have given you an example of how your premise on the latter fails every single day, hundreds of thousands of times, every time someone gets a driver's license.

Never said training was a perfect solution. Your comparison with a driver's license is a good analogy, but by your logic we might as well stop requiring driver's license exams and testing since it doesn't weed out all bad drivers.

WayneConrad
January 24, 2006, 08:45 PM
A short list of some deaths caused by governments against their own disarmed people:

Nazi Germany: 11 million, give or take a few
Stalin: 10-50 million
Khmer Rouge: 1.7 million

Our ultimate need for arms is to defend ourselves against governments: Either a foreign invader, or our own turned tyrranical. The magnitude of the threat to each of us from governments gone bad dwarfs any from shaky-handed elders or poorly trained rambos. This is not hypothetical: The numbers show how dangerous governments have been.

The problem with requiring permission for bearing arms is in who must give the permission: The very government that, should it turn tyrranical, we must use those arms against in defense of our very lives.

Now do you see the problem with requiring government permission to keep and bear arms?

NineseveN
January 24, 2006, 08:55 PM
Your comparison with a driver's license is a good analogy, but by your logic we might as well stop requiring driver's license exams and testing since it doesn't weed out all bad drivers.

Ah, but Driving is a not a right, whereas keeping and bearing arms is...which is where the differences lie.

The driving analogy is only useful when discussing training/testing and restoration of rights after prison.

It seems we have it backwards. Anyone can own a car regardless of their history (criminal or not), and if one kills another with a motor vehicle, once relased from prison, they may purchase and potentially operate a motor vehicle.

Commit any felony, and say bye bye to firearms for good. Commit some misdemeanors and say bye bye as well.

CleaningAccident
January 24, 2006, 10:39 PM
As a staunch defender of the "United States Bill of Rights" I feel compelled to make comment here.
You may feel free to use your "First Amendment Right" to argue with me, thanks again to the Bill of Rights that protects your right of free speech and those that have defended it.

Second Amendment of the U.S Bill of Rights:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
in∑fringed;
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>

The Second Amendment guarantees protection from infringement, by government, judicial, police.....neighborhood associations...the lady next door......the college student that decides under what conditions people should be allowed to use their constitutional rights ...or anyone else that would otherwise deny people of the guaranteed liberty. It makes no provision for anyone to infringe upon that right, no matter what their position or political agenda is.

No matter how well intentioned a self-appointed judge may be, the Bill of Rights guarantees the citizens protection from "their superior judgement" of their perfect society.

I'll leave you with one example of of just such a visionary-
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." --Adolf Hitler, 1935

Herself
January 25, 2006, 12:17 AM
Remember, I watched a CWP student point the gun down range, close her eyes, turn her face away and then pull the trigger. She still got her certificate of completion for the class.
And what did you do the first time you fired a handgun, JT?
The first revolver I fired as an adult, I walked the darned barrel back and forth over a pretty wide arc, certainly well off each side of the paper of a close target all through the loooong trigger pull and it leapt in my hand like a live thing when the hammer fell; the first autoloader I fired, I darned near took off a thumbnail! I didn't get much better very quickly, either, though I did manage to stop injuring myself.

In a state with carry restrictions for the unlicensed, a class of the sort you describe can easily be a person's first time (or second or third) to the range and is almost certainly the first time there's anything at stake.

Beginners at anything often look like hell doing it. They're scary and clumsy and inappropriate. This tells us little or nothing about how much they can learn or how much they will learn. It tells us nothing of their motivation.

All we're learning about in the incident you're so fond of relating is your own aesthetic sense and your lack of trust in the instructor and range master. Such trivia might be of interest but it is not of any use. Still, thanks so much for sharing; your fear of other people is palpable.

Are you saying you'd like to be walking to your car in the mall parking lot with your children when this woman pulls out her carry gun to fend off a carjacker and starts blasting away with her eyes closed?
I would not like to be in proximity to any gunfight; nobody would, especially those who have. But I have been, you may be; and we can be pretty sure that at least one side in any such battle has little training and no permit or license to carry. The odds of taking a stray round are actually rather low (and will be even lower with me laying on my belly under a Caddy -- I ain't that brave!), so low that adding the dubious benefit of some mandatory training to one participant doesn't change them significantly. It may even make it worse: police officers are about five times as likely as armed, honest civilians to injure bystanders instead of bad guys in a gunfight. Statistically, I would be less safe if the cops rode to her defense!

I would really like to know how you could be sure her eyes were shut unless you were on the wrong end of the range or hovering way too close to a noob under instruction, by the way; but no matter. She started her learning the day you watched her with the supercilious horror of the better-trained, when few if any of her rounds went where she wanted them to go. Of course, carjackings happen at close range; if she gets a couple shots off at arm's length, she already got the guy without needing to aim, just point and blam!


...You keep dreaming up scary hypotheticals. They're just dreams! Try to remember that as an EMT, you were handed a seriously skewed sample of the amount of stupidity, bad luck and violence any one person is likely to be directly subject to. Most folks do have a smattering of good sense and we trust them with all manner of dreadful instrumentalities, from automobiles to electricity, from weedkiller to MAPP-gas torches. Granny may confuse the plaster of paris with confectioner's sugar and poison us all! --But you'd win a lot of bets wagering against it happening.

There are risks in our lives; it is up to each of us to evaluate the risks we face and act accordingly. Your evaluation of the risk to others from "untrained" citizens exercising their natural and fundamental right of self-defense is quite out of keeping with the actual risk. If it wasn't, Vermont would be a bloodbath.

--Herself

jtward01
January 25, 2006, 05:01 AM
And what did you do the first time you fired a handgun, JT?

I really don't remember, I was only five or six at the time.

The first revolver I fired as an adult, I walked the darned barrel back and forth over a pretty wide arc, certainly well off each side of the paper of a close target all through the loooong trigger pull and it leapt in my hand like a live thing when the hammer fell; the first autoloader I fired, I darned near took off a thumbnail! I didn't get much better very quickly, either, though I did manage to stop injuring myself.

Were you applying for a permit to carry a handgun in public at the time? Probably not, you seem to have more sense than that.

I would really like to know how you could be sure her eyes were shut unless you were on the wrong end of the range or hovering way too close to a noob under instruction, by the way; but no matter.

As I've said repeatedly, she closed her eyes and turned her face away from the target. I was in the shooting lane next to where these students were being "tested" and when she turned her face she was looking straight at me (or would have been looking, if she'd opened her eyes).

Your evaluation of the risk to others from "untrained" citizens exercising their natural and fundamental right of self-defense is quite out of keeping with the actual risk. If it wasn't, Vermont would be a bloodbath. --Herself

The crime rate in Vermont is so low as to make it statistically insignificant. According to the Vermont Attorney General's Office (I called today), on average firearms are used for personal defense less than five times a year in that state.

I spent much of the day on the telephone today with folks at the NRA and the CDC. I also tried to track down John Lott at FSU, without success. Unfortunately, no one I spoke to is aware of any statistical comparison between CWP holders in states that require meanful training and those that do not. I guess I'll be spending the next couple of days writing to the licensing authorities in those states that require training and those that do not asking several questions.

1. What percentage of persons licensed to carry have actually discharged their firearms in a defensive role?

2. Of those who have discharged their firearms in a defensive role how many have hit their intended target?

3. Of those who have discharged their firearms in a defensive role how many have injured a bystander?

If these figures are available it should present a pretty interesting picture. I'd be happy to see suggestions for other questions I might include.

Frankly, I have no doubt that even if statistics show that untrained CWP holders are killing hundreds of innocent bystanders each year (which I don't really expect, of course) there are those on this forum that would still be opposed to mandatory training or other qualifying criteria (such as passing a short written test on firearms safety/concealed carry laws and demonstrating proficiency on the range) for CWP applicants.

Herself
January 25, 2006, 09:16 AM
I spent much of the day on the telephone today with folks at the NRA and the CDC. I also tried to track down John Lott at FSU, without success. Unfortunately, no one I spoke to is aware of any statistical comparison between CWP holders in states that require meanful training and those that do not.
Correct -- because the numbers are so small that they don't support anyone spending moe than a few minutes looking into it on the public's tax moeny!
I guess I'll be spending the next couple of days writing to the licensing authorities in those states that require training and those that do not asking several questions.[...]
Good luck with that bit of pot-stirring -- you'll find many keep no such stats. My opinion is that your delight at this project clearly reveals you to be nothing more than a tool of gun-grabbers.

I notice you've simply ignored the fact that statistically, police officers -- surely as well-trained a group as you wish citizens who carry concealed should be compelled to be -- are five times as likely to shoot the wrong individual than are armed private citizens. How much better with their weapons than the cops do you believe private gun-owners ought to be? Could it be there is really no level of proficiency that would still your fervid fears?

You still don't get it, do you? --At the Federal level, there's no Constitutional basis for the kind of restrictive requirements you want to impose on others; ignoring the 14th Amendment for the moment, at the State level, several States are barred from imposing them as well. So not only is it immoral to restrict the poor, the busy, the slow-witted, the clumsy, the dyslexic and the disabled in the keeping and bearing of arms, it is extra-legal as well. And once they're out, it's on to the rest of us -- very likely starting with you.

Frankly, I have no doubt that even if statistics show that untrained CWP holders are killing hundreds of innocent bystanders each year (which I don't really expect, of course) there are those on this forum that would still be opposed to mandatory training or other qualifying criteria (such as passing a short written test on firearms safety/concealed carry laws and demonstrating proficiency on the range) for CWP applicants.
What price freedom? Do you any[/i[ idea of the carnage wreaked by trianed and licensed [i]drivers? Yet you are not complaining how government should set the bar even higher to indulge in that deadly activity. Do you even suspect the death toll amoung children from large buckets with more than a few inched of liquid in them? --Yet you're not calling for mandatory training of those involved in bucket trades! And privately-owned swimming pools, my heavens, they're deathtraps; but you're happy to leave the children and adults to die in them at a rate much higher than the death rate from all gunshot deaths combined. Why is that? Could it be there's a bee in your bonnet? A bee named "Brady," perhaps?

--Herself

beaucoup ammo
January 25, 2006, 10:05 AM
For what it's worth, the framers of the "Virginia Military Clause" shared your belief that some training was in order:

Virginia Militia Clause:? "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State."

Take Care

jtward01
January 25, 2006, 12:06 PM
A short list of some deaths caused by governments against their own disarmed people:

Nazi Germany: 11 million, give or take a few
Stalin: 10-50 million
Khmer Rouge: 1.7 million

Our ultimate need for arms is to defend ourselves against governments: Either a foreign invader, or our own turned tyrranical. The magnitude of the threat to each of us from governments gone bad dwarfs any from shaky-handed elders or poorly trained rambos. This is not hypothetical: The numbers show how dangerous governments have been.

The problem with requiring permission for bearing arms is in who must give the permission: The very government that, should it turn tyrranical, we must use those arms against in defense of our very lives.

Now do you see the problem with requiring government permission to keep and bear arms?

Absolutely. Never advocated government licensing to own firearms. This thread is simply about requiring those who want a license to carry a firearm in public to demonstrate that they have a working knowledge of concealed carry and deadly force laws and a basic proficiency with their weapon.

You want to keep a dozen AKs at home in the closet I got no problem with that at all.

jtward01
January 25, 2006, 12:22 PM
I notice you've simply ignored the fact that statistically, police officers -- surely as well-trained a group as you wish citizens who carry concealed should be compelled to be -- are five times as likely to shoot the wrong individual than are armed private citizens. How much better with their weapons than the cops do you believe private gun-owners ought to be? Could it be there is really no level of proficiency that would still your fervid fears?

Are those stats based on total shootings, or on a ratio? If based on total shootings then it's not surprising at all since police officers are involved in gun fights far more often than armed citizens. If they're illustrating a ratio, say (for example) for every 100 times they use their firearms the police will shoot the wrong person 10 times, while for every 100 times they use their firearms an armed citizen will shoot the wrong person two times (your 5 to 1 ratio) then I would be very surprised.

Could it be there's a bee in your bonnet? A bee named "Brady," perhaps?

I find the statements and policies of the Violence Policy Center and its sister groups to be at least mis-leading, sometimes outright lies and always disgusting. Please do not compare me with that group of fanatics and lunatics.

smince
January 25, 2006, 12:35 PM
Absolutely. Never advocated government licensing to own firearms. This thread is simply about requiring those who want a license to carry a firearm in public to demonstrate that they have a working knowledge of concealed carry and deadly force laws and a basic proficiency with their weapon.

You want to keep a dozen AKs at home in the closet I got no problem with that at all.

What if your neighbor has the "closet full of AK's" and has to shoot a home intruder. Don't, by your own logic, they need to have MANDATORY training to simply posess the weapons they have because they MIGHT POSSIBLY have to use said weapons for defense? Better have training because the whole block may get shot up if they don't.:rolleyes:

jtward01
January 25, 2006, 12:37 PM
For what it's worth, the framers of the "Virginia Military Clause" shared your belief that some training was in order:

Virginia Militia Clause:? "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State."

Take Care


Wouldn't it have been great if the US Constitution had included similar words? Then there would have been no question of individual rights. The words "composed of the body of the people" would have made it clear that everyone was to be allowed to own a firearm.

Perhaps it could have read - "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Of course, it still leaves open to interpretation just what is meant by "a well-regulated" militia. This, of course, is what those who advocate gun control base their arguments on, so it certainly wouldn't solve all the controversy, but it sure would have helped.

JohnBT
January 25, 2006, 12:38 PM
When they start requiring training for parenthood I'll agree to training for hunting, fishing and concealed carry.

John

jtward01
January 25, 2006, 12:45 PM
What if your neighbor has the "closet full of AK's" and has to shoot a home intruder. Don't, by your own logic, they need to have MANDATORY training to simply posess the weapons they have because they MIGHT POSSIBLY have to use said weapons for defense? Better have training because the whole block may get shot up if they don't.

Yes, I suppose it would be better. But the only way to require the training, or at least a demonstration of proficiency, would be as part of a licensing program and I have no desire to require licenses for firearms ownership. Licensing for concealed carry is already in place in most states.

Deathrider1579
January 25, 2006, 12:47 PM
I would just like to remind everyone that even the CHL/CPL/CCL/CWP whatever you want to call you concealed carry license is in fact unconstitutional.

If i want to carry an AK-47 strapped across my back that I have never even fired or looked at this morning when I bought it and some ammo at the corner store. Its legal (if you are living where the government keeps to the constitution). The whole idea of needing a license to do anything drives me up the wall (drivers license included) its all unconstitutional.

Training not required, you are going to have dumasses who do stupid things with or without a license.

Accursed liberals and ignorant Americans :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :fire: :fire: :fire: :cuss: :cuss:

Those who threaten our right to keep and BEAR (this means haul around how ever we see fit) should be treated like an enemy combatants and a immediate threat to our lives.

-DR

jtward01
January 25, 2006, 12:47 PM
When they start requiring training for parenthood I'll agree to training for hunting, fishing and concealed carry.

John

Don't some states already require completion of a hunter's safety course in order to get a hunting license?

NineseveN
January 25, 2006, 12:52 PM
Yes, I suppose it would be better. But the only way to require the training, or at least a demonstration of proficiency, would be as part of a licensing program and I have no desire to require licenses for firearms ownership. Licensing for concealed carry is already in place in most states.

1. What's the difference between a license for carry and a license to own?

While some of us work to repeal the license requirement for carry, you want us to be on board with another unconstitutional restriction that could and would be used as a vehicle to deny our Second Amendment rights.

2. What is wrong with my suggestion that you advocate everyone being required to learn proper laws and saftey in regards to firearms at the highschool or lower level? Would you care to address that? Why does it have to be requirement to exercise a constitutional right, therefor being unconstituional?

hub
January 25, 2006, 12:53 PM
i thought thats what we used to clean m16's with, not a fragile issue, but if it is give everyone a 45. just act a fool somone in this plce has the nuts to tell you your wrong and should accept the conciqueinces (spelling) you will be caught soon enough and you will go too jail! i believe in 2nd chanches but not in this form peace im out....

NineseveN
January 25, 2006, 12:54 PM
Don't some states already require completion of a hunter's safety course in order to get a hunting license?

Doesn't matter, there is no explicit right to hunt. Apples to oranges. Hunting is a sport, keeping and bearing arms is a right. Just because you need one to practice the other (in most cases) does not give them both equal weight, importance or validity when it concerns our rights.

jtward01
January 25, 2006, 12:55 PM
If i want to carry an AK-47 strapped across my back that I have never even fired or looked at this morning when I bought it and some ammo at the corner store. Its legal (if you are living where the government keeps to the constitution). -DR

Why don't you go ahead and do that, DR? Then you can get yourself arrested and appeal your conviction all the way to the US Supreme Court and get this whole gun control issue settled once and for all. Sure, you may have to sell your house and everything else you own to pay the legal bills, but if you're so certain that you're in the right what does it matter? Surely all like-minded gun owners will flock to your defense and send you many thousands of dollars to make up for your losses. You do trust your fellow man to do the right thing, don't you?

beaucoup ammo
January 25, 2006, 12:57 PM
Indeed it would have! Only one state provision (Virginia..1776) included the term "the Body of the People," and both this provision and the similar ones in the Second Amendment drafts were sources for the Militia Clause, not the operative clause.

Take Care

NineseveN
January 25, 2006, 12:58 PM
Why don't you go ahead and do that, DR? Then you can get yourself arrested and appeal your conviction all the way to the US Supreme Court and get this whole gun control issue settled once and for all. Sure, you may have to sell your house and everything else you own to pay the legal bills, but if you're so certain that you're in the right what does it matter? Surely all like-minded gun owners will flock to your defense and send you many thousands of dollars to make up for your losses. You do trust your fellow man to do the right thing, don't you?

I am thinking that he lives in an area where this is legal, which would kinda snuff your argument from the door. But I could be reading him wrong.

jtward01
January 25, 2006, 01:02 PM
1. What's the difference between a license for carry and a license to own?

While some of us work to repeal the license requirement for carry, you want us to be on board with another unconstitutional restriction that could and would be used as a vehicle to deny our Second Amendment rights.

2. What is wrong with my suggestion that you advocate everyone being required to learn proper laws and saftey in regards to firearms at the highschool or lower level? Would you care to address that? Why does it have to be requirement to exercise a constitutional right, therefor being unconstituional?

A license to carry allows you to carry that weapon in public places and not just in your home, vehicle, while hunting or target shooting or whatever.

I have no problem at all with having marksmanship training included as part of a school curriculum. Wouldn't it be great if all these young people were exposed to the fun of shooting. The future of our sport would be much brighter. I just don't think it's a realistic goal in today's society. There's already been pressure in some places to drop marksmanship from high school ROTC programs and the Boy Scouts.

Deathrider1579
January 25, 2006, 01:12 PM
I am thinking that he lives in an area where this is legal, which would kinda snuff your argument from the door. But I could be reading him wrong.

I am NineseveN though its not advisable. I live in Texas, from what I understand of the law here you can walk around with a rifle (not a pistol grr stupid illegal laws) without breaking any laws. The problem comes when you "cause a disturbance" i.e. some one calls the cops cause you are running around with a rifle (a scawy eviwl bwack wifle). So they can't get you for just carrying it but they can find crap to screw up your weekend.

I was mostly saying what life should be like across the US.

2. What is wrong with my suggestion that you advocate everyone being required to learn proper laws and safety in regards to firearms at the high school or lower level? Would you care to address that? Why does it have to be requirement to exercise a constitutional right, therefore being unconstitutional?


I think that’s a great idea NineseveN! perhaps it should be a requirement for graduation from High School or grade school?

All laws that restrict the ownership of weapons are illegal end of story. Unfortunately our courts are filled with liberal soft shells who want a disarmed workforce (after your guns are gone your not a citizen / free man any more).
Why? I don't know but that’s the way they are ruling and acting.

You are either a citizen or a peasant / serf, you get to decide where you fall.


-Dr

beaucoup ammo
January 25, 2006, 01:35 PM
I'd say 95% of us posting here don't go shoot for their supper. Back when the Framers were busy outlining our country's future, it was common for many..IMO, to be proficient enough with a weapon to go blast a squirrell or two at 50 yds to toss in the pot.

I'm very Pro 2nd, AND see the value of knowing the dynamics and responsibility of a handgun/ rifle (and the attendant laws) before carrying concealed or otherwise. It IS 200+ years later and, like it or not, making a dumb mistake because of lack of know how regarding weapons.. sets the Pro 2nd among us back 3 steps for every one we take forward.

We have a right to bear arms..lets not give the "anti's" more ammunition by shooting ourselves in the foot due to ignorance of the very thing we're fighting for.

My gripe is the Price of a CCW. It disenfranchises a lot of Americans from exercising their right...hell, some CCW instructors should donate their time and expertise to help bring the cost down.

Sometimes you have to deal with reality...in a not so perfect world.

Take Care

NineseveN
January 25, 2006, 02:15 PM
A license to carry allows you to carry that weapon in public places and not just in your home, vehicle, while hunting or target shooting or whatever.

I was asing a fundamental question, not asking for a definition.

You want to further restrict and regulate a license to carry which swe have now, yet you don't want that same license and restriction on owning firearms...why is it okay for one and not the other? Explain the difference.

If you enjoyed reading about "CPL w/o training? i think its crazy" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!