Should there be a minimum standard for CCW guns


PDA






gym
April 29, 2011, 11:31 AM
Not a maximum standard, but minimum standard. Like a test to see if the weapon fires? , We used to have it for cars, now I see stuff driving by that is falling apart doing 90, that's just dangerous. Shouldn't the same standard apply to a gun. Not the person just the weapon. Like ok it shoot's next. Or you gotta be kidding the ammo is rusted into the cylinder. Just a suggestion, even a voluntary system where folks "especially non gun folks" could take a gun and have a volunteer saftey check it and maybe make a few suggestions, like I would check that firing pin, or your culinder head space is off so bad it may blow up if you need it. I would sit at a table and have them lay the wepon on some sort of cotainment area so you don't get shot trying to help. No names no Id just a saftey inspection?
I have over the years seen guns that "god hope they never need them" needed a good cleaning and a few cheap parts of an alignment,spring, mag, etc. Sure would stop a false sense of security getting someone killed with those soaking wet shotgun shells that grandma saved.

If you enjoyed reading about "Should there be a minimum standard for CCW guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ColtPythonElite
April 29, 2011, 11:41 AM
Nope....I can see it for things like cars. If they malfunction, they may harm someone else on the road. As far as a CCW goes, if it malfunctions when needed the carrier is the one likely to get hurt (by his assailant). Too bad for him for his negligence.

seuadr
April 29, 2011, 11:46 AM
even though the government has not figured it out yet, you can not legislate common sense.

gatorjames85
April 29, 2011, 11:50 AM
Yes, the government doesn't do a good enough job protecting us from ourselves as is.

kingpin008
April 29, 2011, 12:02 PM
Every time I see a thread like this, I die a little more inside.

If someone is stupid or lazy enough to carry a non-functional gun, that's on them. Not my problem, and certainly not an issue worth legislating. We should be pushing for less governmental intrusion into our lives, not more.

pockets
April 29, 2011, 12:03 PM
Also make sure everyone's lawnmower blade isn't loose, their sump pump works, their glasses are the current prescription, they've had all their shots, there are no rusty nails in the yard, banana peels are all picked up.......
Seriously, where would this end?
.

MtnSpur
April 29, 2011, 12:17 PM
More government intervention regarding firearms? :cuss: I should pray not. If I carry an "unsafe" weapon for CCW and it blows my hand off, shame on me :banghead: . To have a weapons check by the government would not only be insanely cost prohibitive but downright impossible to enforce. Hey, I passed the background check, I passed the written exam and I passed the range requirement as stipulated by my state. I was issued a CHL. I carry a weapon. That's more than enough.

redbeardsong
April 29, 2011, 12:30 PM
I can only agree with all the comments above. It's a terrible idea to invite further government control with regards to our 2nd amendment rights. This kind of thinking is why we have Massachussetts and California guns with mag safeties, loaded chamber indicators and gratuitous warnings on the sides.

Be a good neighbor and offer to help others who might not know any better, or need help with their guns.
Otherwise, worry about your own business and don't meddle in others'.

The Lone Haranguer
April 29, 2011, 12:33 PM
Not a government-imposed one, that's for sure! :rolleyes:

Manco
April 29, 2011, 12:34 PM
Seriously, where would this end?
.

The only place it possibly could--a massive bureaucracy and national bankruptcy...oh wait.... :uhoh:

jiminhobesound
April 29, 2011, 12:42 PM
WOW! I wonder about your political and mental bent. You are an adult, you are responsible for your life and that of your family. Because of government take over of our society we have the need to fight every hour of the day to keep our constitutional rights. Think of it this way with sarcasm; there are some pretty unreliable handguns out there and hopefully the bad guys will procure them and either kill themselves or be shot by adult responsible folks who have made wise choices about their guns.

redbullitt
April 29, 2011, 12:50 PM
holy slippery slope batman.

ForumSurfer
April 29, 2011, 12:51 PM
Sorry gym, I'm with everyone else. The last thing I want is MORE government intervention or some halfwit new guy failing my piece because he doesn't approve of my caliber or ammo choice. I can hear it how: "These rangers you are running are junk, I can pass you but only after you buy these Glasers that special-forces-seal-team-5-mall-ninjas use.

gearhead
April 29, 2011, 12:51 PM
No, for one simple reason.

The government has no business knowing WHAT I carry.

TheCol.U.S.M.C.
April 29, 2011, 01:01 PM
NO never No NO NO NO NO NO stay away from my guns NO NO NO you cant see them touch them inspect them NO NO NO

GEM
April 29, 2011, 01:07 PM
Not a maximum standard, but minimum standard. Like a test to see if the weapon fires?

Well, that takes out a lot of high end 1911s, I've seen at matches - including mine!

So do we have state inspection stations? Check your car, check your gun and get a sticker on it?

That's going to be a hoot.

I'll pass.

ForumSurfer
April 29, 2011, 01:16 PM
I retract my previous statement in favor of this one:

NO never No NO NO NO NO NO stay away from my guns NO NO NO you cant see them touch them inspect them NO NO NO

I also feel it would be appropriate to interject with red-faced stomping tirades with each use of the word "no" in that statement.

Many people carry stuff that I don't believe to be acceptable. It is their business, not mine.

Navin R. Johnson
April 29, 2011, 01:18 PM
I certainly wouldn't want somebody’s attempt at self-preservation to fail because of a malfunction due to a poor standard of firearm they chose, but as seuadr pointed out "you cannot legislate common sense."

Individual responsibility is something I highly value. I am not willing to trade my freedom for the smokescreen of safety.

kingcheese
April 29, 2011, 01:22 PM
i can see it now...
required monthly test, have to be performed by federal apointed officals, and it will be for the low price of 1,000 dollars per gun, per month

sound about right?

Loosedhorse
April 29, 2011, 01:26 PM
We have an approved firearms list (I understand CA does also). It was instituted by the AG under MA consumer protection laws, although it took a Supreme Judicial Court case (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1301130.html) to decide he had that power.

The first effect of "The List" was to make it impossible to get top-end handguns here. Five copies of "each model" (different barrel length or different material--blued vs. stainless--equals different model) had to be rendered unsalable (shot 600 times, dropped on concrete, etc.) in order to be approved. Freedom Arms, for example, noted that the testing requirement would necessitate destroying about $10,000 of inventory--and how many pistols were they going to sell in MA in a given year, to make that up?

It gets worse. Some "approved" models don't meet some of the additional requirements; therefore new ones can't be sold here (ones manufactured before 1998, when the law took affect, can). So, for example, no new Glocks are sold in MA; they're on the list, but they do not have what the AG considers a "loaded chamber indicator," and so cannot be sold new.

And still worse. At first, the AG (apparently--you try to find out the real story) told Glock they were fine to begin selling. So they did. Then the AG told them they were in violation: they could not sell. We had the phenomenon of gun shops across the state contacting recent purchasers of new Glocks, telling them the guns were "defective" per the AG, and requesting their return.

It is widey assumed that the AG handled Glock this way to discourage any other manufacturers from going through the approval process.

Oh--did I mention that Glocks, defective though they are, are the issue weapon for the Boston PD?

You can have a look at our "List" here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mass.gov%2FEeops%2Fdocs%2Fchsb%2Ffirearms%2Fapproved_firearms_roster_03-2011.pdf&rct=j&q=ma%20approved%20firearms%20roster&ei=7fC6TcmOIabZ0QHd87zEBQ&usg=AFQjCNHAjoat_PxRUsTf1mgdm1njgf9plw); you'll note lots of manufacturers missing; and again, some "approved" guns (like Glocks) are not available for new retail sale, despite being on the list.

So, be careful about this minimum standards stuff.

Claude Clay
April 29, 2011, 01:28 PM
bureaucratic oversight by The Ministry Of Silly Walk

only way it could possibly work

788Ham
April 29, 2011, 01:33 PM
And just pray tell are you going to get this "inspector"? Who's to decide on whats acceptable and whats not? Make, model, caliber, see you've already opened a can of worms on how to pick and choose. If you choose to walk the streets of mid America with a non-functioning firearm, you'd best know you maker and have you Aflac insurance paid up! I understand what you're getting at, but then like some others have said also, who're you to tell me what to carry and how?

hso
April 29, 2011, 01:34 PM
No

Vehicle safety checks could be argued that they're protecting other people who might be in the vehicle besides the operator or other drivers/passengers the heap shares the road with. Since others might be directly affected due to a failure it might be a public safety issue.

If MY handgun doesn't work it is just my, the owner's, problem instead of anyone else directly.

You might argue that regulations or laws protecting others from me are reasonable.

Protecting me from me, no.

youngda9
April 29, 2011, 01:51 PM
Caliber must start with a 4

:)

Zonie
April 29, 2011, 01:53 PM
...even a voluntary system where folks "especially non gun folks" could take a gun and have a volunteer saftey check it and maybe make a few suggestions, like I would check that firing pin, or your culinder head space is off so bad it may blow up if you need it. I would sit at a table and have them lay the wepon on some sort of cotainment area so you don't get shot trying to help.

1. No this shouldn't be legislated.

2. The place quoted above is called a gunsmith. Anyone who needs one should be capable of finding one.

Vern Humphrey
April 29, 2011, 02:00 PM
Not a maximum standard, but minimum standard. Like a test to see if the weapon fires? , We used to have it for cars, now I see stuff driving by that is falling apart doing 90, that's just dangerous. Shouldn't the same standard apply to a gun. Not the person just the weapon. Like ok it shoot's next. Or you gotta be kidding the ammo is rusted into the cylinder. Just a suggestion, even a voluntary system where folks "especially non gun folks" could take a gun and have a volunteer saftey check it and maybe make a few suggestions, like I would check that firing pin, or your culinder head space is off so bad it may blow up if you need it. I would sit at a table and have them lay the wepon on some sort of cotainment area so you don't get shot trying to help. No names no Id just a saftey inspection?
I have over the years seen guns that "god hope they never need them" needed a good cleaning and a few cheap parts of an alignment,spring, mag, etc. Sure would stop a false sense of security getting someone killed with those soaking wet shotgun shells that grandma saved.

You're proposing a solution. The general rule is, before you propose a solution, you should have a problem. And, ideally, there should be some relationship between the problem and the proposed solution.

What's the problem? How many guns fail in the clinch in a given year?

ForumSurfer
April 29, 2011, 02:37 PM
Post #20 sums up what happen when big brother or anyone else starts getting into this standards nonsense.

Guardrail
April 29, 2011, 02:47 PM
This is similar to the motorcycle helmet debate. If your brain isn't smart enough to protect itself... I don't want another government organization telling me my ammo doesn't cut it because someone has determined the shelf life on 9mm bullets is 657 days.

Guardrail

CTPhil
April 29, 2011, 04:40 PM
If someone needs someone else to check their handgun they shouldn't be carrying one.

grubbylabs
April 29, 2011, 04:45 PM
I did not see anything in the constitution about a minimum standard linked tot he 2nd amendment. So I would have to say no. In fact I don't agree with them limiting what guns people can have, again the constitution does not differentiate between military guns civilian guns or sporting guns. It just gives us the right.

gym
April 29, 2011, 04:58 PM
Hey guys I'm glad to see you all in favor of small govt., But Govt dosen't need to be involved at all here. What about a gun saftey table at a show or a park, where folks could come annonomouslly and ask to have their gun checked by guys like here. I would volunteer for a day to help out my fellow ccw carrier. No lists or madatory anything just a check for folks who were not experienced enough to even clean their gun.
How many times has someone asked "I took my pistol apart and can't get it back together". I wasn't meaning this to get political, just as a helping hand to the millons of non espert gun buyers. Maybe an NRA sponsored program. And for the fellow who said 'isn't my problem" well it may be, if he pulls a gun to defend someone you know, and put the recoil spring in backwards.

ForumSurfer
April 29, 2011, 05:12 PM
What about a gun saftey table at a show or a park, where folks could come annonomouslly and ask to have their gun checked by guys like here.

You mean gather a whole bunch of non informed and armed people together? Sounds like a recipe for disaster with the brady bunch waiting to youtube any ND's for the world to see. So no, I wouldn't volunteer for a public event like this, no way no how. :)

If you are going to carry concealed, then you should have enough sense to know your firearm and know when it is safe for carry and operation. If you don't know, then you should have the common sense to learn. The person has enough sense to legally buy a firarm, s/he can go back to the store and ask for advice on classes...which are usually posted all over the store. If they are too lazy to do that then they'll bee too lazy to come to your day at the park, too.

modifiedbrowning
April 29, 2011, 05:27 PM
Just a suggestion, even a voluntary system where folks "especially non gun folks" could take a gun and have a volunteer saftey check it and maybe make a few suggestions,
They are called gunsmiths, but they aren't volunteers.

gym
April 29, 2011, 05:34 PM
I guess it's a bad idea, I just see so many posts where the person has no idea what they are talking about, Gun wise, and already is carrying a licensed handgun that I thought this would help, but I guess I was wrong. Leave them to their own demise.

MtnSpur
April 29, 2011, 05:48 PM
Hey guys I'm glad to see you all in favor of small govt., But Govt dosen't need to be involved at all here. What about a gun saftey table at a show or a park, where folks could come annonomouslly and ask to have their gun checked by guys like here.

I would think liability issues would be off the scale.
Again, NO.
Take a malfunctioning weapon to a qualified gunsmith or return it to manufacturer for repair. Don't believe for a second that "joe gun dude" can fix it. He might know xyz mfg/model but not yours.

If liabilty is at all involved the insurance folks/government folks/lawyers are sure to arrive en masse.

kingpin008
April 29, 2011, 05:53 PM
Look - your heart is in the right place, but what you're suggesting is a logistical and legal nightmare.

For the sake of argument, let's say that what you propose actually happens. A group of volunteers set up "safety check" tables at gun shows, public parks, wherever.

Who's going to decide who is knowledgeable enough to perform such checks?

What sort of checks do you perform? Why only those and not more?

What will you do to ensure that the recipient of said check actually understood what you said? Will you require they sign a form or some other document to record that the weapon was checked?

If so, was that form legal? If so, who paid the lawyer to draft it for you?

If not, who is responsible in the event of a faulty check or an accident due to the owner failing to follow instructions?

And on and on and on.

See why we're against it? It's a solution in search of a problem, and much, much more complicated than you seem to think it is.

Ole Coot
April 29, 2011, 05:53 PM
Just what I need more government interference in my life. I imagine it would be run by a politician who never fired a gun. I would like to finish my life with the watered down freedoms we still have, wouldn't shave 50yrs off my age and start over today. I was drafted after I volunteered, couldn't even get that right.

gym
April 29, 2011, 06:00 PM
Yes King you are right, sometimes trying to help can be worse than doing nothing at all.

kingpin008
April 29, 2011, 06:06 PM
Like I said, your heart is in the right place. You just gotta accept that sometimes a little personal responsibility is a good thing. If people WANT to learn how to be safe, they will. If you spoon-feed it to them, they have no reason to try, and will probably pay even LESS attention to it in the future.

Win1892
April 29, 2011, 06:20 PM
Great idea and let's go ahead and have an entrance exam prior to being granted access to The High Road. Lots of potentially lethal information here so let's screen users and perusers to make sure they're qualified to make rational decisions relevant to all of this readily available dangerous information.

GIVE ME A BREAK!

Larry E
April 29, 2011, 06:30 PM
Anyone who carries a handgun, supposedly for self defense, who doesn't know whether or not their gun works or their gun and ammunition work together, or whatever other bizarre combination isn't going to work deserves whatever ill falls upon them. Too bad for them.

It's gotten so that people expect the government to hold their hand, kiss their boo-boos, pay their bills, wipe their noses and other end as well, and hesitate to take any responsibility for themselves or their actions. Then they stand around and wonder why the whole works is going to heck in a hand basket.

orionengnr
April 29, 2011, 06:32 PM
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

General Geoff
April 29, 2011, 06:33 PM
The only minimum standard for firearms should be against defects in workmanship or function from the factory, which from what I understand is the standard for pretty much all new commercially sold products.

The government does not need to draft up silly minimum standards for sidearms.


Hey guys I'm glad to see you all in favor of small govt., But Govt dosen't need to be involved at all here. What about a gun saftey table at a show or a park, where folks could come annonomouslly and ask to have their gun checked by guys like here. I would volunteer for a day to help out my fellow ccw carrier. No lists or madatory anything just a check for folks who were not experienced enough to even clean their gun.

Issue there is civil liability in the event of a malfunction of a gun that has been checked by these good samaritans. If there was an ironclad way to absolve these volunteer function check folks from any liability, I'd be all for it. But you know that someone is going to have a gun either malfunction, or say it malfunctioned when they were really just being negligent, and sue the heck out of whomever organized, endorsed, or participated in the volunteer gun checking event.

Fleet
April 29, 2011, 06:38 PM
Only if you think people should take a (insert favorite test here) before they are allowed to vote.

jimmyraythomason
April 29, 2011, 06:42 PM
Should there be a minimum standard for CCW guns
Absolutely not!

ForumSurfer
April 29, 2011, 06:52 PM
Look - your heart is in the right place, but what you're suggesting is a logistical and legal nightmare.

For the sake of argument, let's say that what you propose actually happens. A group of volunteers set up "safety check" tables at gun shows, public parks, wherever.

Who's going to decide who is knowledgeable enough to perform such checks?

What sort of checks do you perform? Why only those and not more?

What will you do to ensure that the recipient of said check actually understood what you said? Will you require they sign a form or some other document to record that the weapon was checked?

If so, was that form legal? If so, who paid the lawyer to draft it for you?

If not, who is responsible in the event of a faulty check or an accident due to the owner failing to follow instructions?

And on and on and on.

See why we're against it? It's a solution in search of a problem, and much, much more complicated than you seem to think it is.

That sums it up pretty well. You have the noblest of intentions, but it is a recipe for disaster.

kingpin008
April 29, 2011, 07:04 PM
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

What part of this thread don't you understand?

The OP's plan (flawed though it may be) has nothing to do with restricting or prohibiting people from owning or carrying guns. Therefore, your comment is just a teensy bit off the mark.

gym
April 29, 2011, 07:15 PM
Gen Geof i already agreed but there are several ways of getting by the issue of liability, things like surity bonds for the day, are very inexpensive, please don't lecture me, we have security patrols here and are abloslved of all liability from the builder who covers us under his policy. It can be done but apparantlly there is no intrest in it so I dropped it. If you want to continue I assusre you I can lay all your fears to rest and refute all your arguments. Same with infringe, helping someone is not infringing. Let's get out our dictionarys and legal books. If you provide a free voluntary service for the good or public safter with the intent to educate and help someone you are not infringinging on their rights as a public service. And if you don't know how to vote there is someone there to help you so don't get dramatic. You also aren't warateeing work simply giving advise on a volatary basis. Like is this the right cartridge for this gun, I have several and I don't know which are the proper ones, like you can't see some senior not knowing that.
Infringe - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
No rights are meant to be violated apparantlly you need the definition more than I
And although there are no standards for firearms, there are for stupidity, as many people who have them are not educated in their use. so mistakes get made.

Old krow
April 29, 2011, 11:55 PM
I agree with Kingpin for the most part. I'd hate to see us as gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, or 2nd Amendment supporters give up that type of control to the Government. They have their hands full breaking all of the programs that their running now.

On the other hand, I really do not think that it would be a bad idea if some of the organizations that did support RKBA were to teach free CCW classes. Maybe some already do? I also like the Appleseed idea even though it isn't CCW specific, it does promote safety. From what I understand it's free to the military. Since many in the mil have already been introduced to firearms I'd rather see those free spots go somewhere else. I'd happily pay my way in if it meant that someone else who otherwise wouldn't have been able to go could benefit from it.

Personally I think that if anyone could manage something like that, it would/could/should be the NRA or someone along those lines who already have legal teams, gunsmiths, instructors, etc on standby. I would modify your proposal by saying "yes" if the NRA would do it. They could fund it by not sending out gifts or massive amounts of mail. I wouldn't mind going without my gifts and in the end I'd think that the money was probably better spent.

Tim the student
April 30, 2011, 12:05 AM
No.

offroader1006
April 30, 2011, 12:14 AM
Every time I see a thread like this, I die a little more inside.

If someone is stupid or lazy enough to carry a non-functional gun, that's on them. Not my problem, and certainly not an issue worth legislating. We should be pushing for less governmental intrusion into our lives, not more.

this.

1. No one needs to let it be known that they carry. to anyone.

2. I regularly run my self defense JHP ammo on my CCW gun at the range, just to make sure no feed issues have come up. I ALWAYS shoot my CCW gun at least one magazine every range trip. Anyone that doesnt have sense enough to do the same is only going to, possibly, hurt themselves.

CajunBass
April 30, 2011, 12:26 AM
I just cannot believe some of the stuff people come up with. :rolleyes:

Kendal Black
April 30, 2011, 01:03 AM
People who say "there oughta be a law" generally have not been paying attention to the world around them. We have laws and rules and regulations for every occasion, and forms in triplicate. Have they helped?

The "voluntary program" for gun functionality already exists; it is to ask your friendly neighborhood gunsmith, if you yourself are afflicted with clue deficit disorder. Usually a quick consultation is free.

I lived in a state--and I hope to go back again--where there was no mechanical roadworthiness inspection for automobiles. Operating an unsafe vehicle was a summary offense. Furthermore, there was no help for you in court, if you did that and caused a crash--and that setup worked out okay. It put the responsibility squarely on the driver. I hope that hasn't been repealed while I've been away. I saw fewer rolling scrapheaps there than in the state where I now live. Here, the annual state authorized inspection and repair program is sometimes characterized as "welfare for mechanics." That is the charitable description.

coloradokevin
April 30, 2011, 01:15 AM
If someone chooses to protect themselves with a glorified rust-covered paperweight, that's none of my concern. My defensive weapons are all tried, trusted, and properly maintained, and I don't think the government (at any level) should be involved in such a certification process of individual firearms.

In fact, apathy on this subject is advantageous to most of us. Many of the 'hood rats I see with guns are carrying poorly maintained firearms that may or may not work. That's just as well for me, should they ever try to send a round or two in my direction!

I'm also glad that my state doesn't sponsor any of the prettiness inspections for our vehicles that other states do!

XxWINxX94
April 30, 2011, 01:16 AM
I'm going to have to disagree with that idea. Your essentially saying that CCW should be regulated even more than it already is, via safety inspections.

I know what your idea is, but whoever carries an unsafe CCW is on their own. If they want to carry a rusty ole Luger or something, let them do it.

Even if that is legislated, who would the volunteers be? Depending if they are pro or anti gun that could lead to more problems. Going out on a limb here, but say several members of the Brady Bunch get in on "inspecting" CCW firearms, they might just try to say that your gun is unsafe, and then the next guy, then the next, and so on, until nobody in the county has a "safe" gun that is acceptable for CCW. All because of the mandatory inspections.

I know what I'm saying might be a little absurd and unlikely, but you have to think about the What-Ifs, especially when they affect your rights.

Personally, I prefer less government regulation, that includes any "inspections" of my guns. They're mine, they don't need to be inspected, I inspect them myself when I buy them. In my state, I don't have the right to carry a firearm, open or concealed, and if I did, I still wouldn't want any inspections, because my carry rig would be tried, tested and ultimatly worthy of carry by my standards.

Owen Sparks
April 30, 2011, 01:24 AM
I will go one better, The best way to carry concealed is without a permit. If they know you have it, it is not concealed. Support constitutional carry in your state.

Gato MontÚs
April 30, 2011, 02:03 AM
Just for discussion purposes only, but what about a law that states that those who wish to CC must carry a firearm that is noted by the manufacturer as being drop safe? Enforcement would come along the lines of response to an incident, after the fact, where a penalty would be issued for carrying a non drop safe weapon?

Then again, as far as I know if you drop a gun and it goes off, you're still responsible for the damages caused anyway.

kayak-man
April 30, 2011, 02:28 AM
And just pray tell are you going to get this "inspector"? Who's to decide on whats acceptable and whats not?

Well, I mean, I've got no problem with doing it........ except that I would probably have to sell my soul to the BATFE andnot get it back until I retire.

I don't think we should have a government regulated standard, short of "the gun must not fire while holstered if you trip and fall. The firearm must not explode when fired."

Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson

Kendal Black
April 30, 2011, 03:54 AM
Just for discussion purposes only, but what about a law that states that those who wish to CC must carry a firearm that is noted by the manufacturer as being drop safe? Enforcement would come along the lines of response to an incident, after the fact, where a penalty would be issued for carrying a non drop safe weapon?

Then again, as far as I know if you drop a gun and it goes off, you're still responsible for the damages caused anyway.

Uhh...Everyone selects a safe to carry weapon anyway, out of common sense. I mean, who does not put away the Remington .41 Derringer and the .45 Colt five out of six shooter as the collectibles they are? I do not see why there is an interest in a legislative fix to an expired problem. No one is carrying those old relics anymore.

As you note, if the bullet came from your gun, it's your problem criminally and civilly. If there is a CCW program that does not preach that, let me know. I would rather this be handled on the private side.

In general, I view the idea of more laws with suspicion; the courts left open the idea of infringement under color of law, in my opinion, but in general I get your drift about liability after the fact. There is no new law needed to create that. We have it already.

lizziedog1
April 30, 2011, 08:14 AM
Ask the good people in California if this is a good idea.

steelerdude99
April 30, 2011, 08:44 AM
CTPhil is a genius; the statement "If someone needs someone else to check their handgun they shouldn't be carrying one." sums it up perfectly.

Guardrail
April 30, 2011, 08:53 AM
Ask the good people in California if this is a good idea.

I'll bet they can't link it to cancer.

Guardrail

gym
April 30, 2011, 10:39 AM
I agree with most of what you are saying , hating large govt, has been a topic in many of my posts, but the bible says love thy neighboor, and "you are your brothers keeper", so please ton't trump the bible with state laws, I said voluntary not state ordained, the volunteers"now that I see what "dropped it" means here" would be the only ones who would have to maybe pass a test of some kind. Don't forget there are a lot of people like my neighboors on 2 sides who don't even know what kind of shotgun they have or if it fires. I would like to help them, and others who are in the same boat. That's all I meant, not a state run anything. Like the folks that go to rave partys and make sure the kids aren't getting poisoned, by some toxic drug, they don't even stop them "they really can't and wouldn't be welcome if they did, but if you could stop one gun from blowing up in someones face it would be worth it.
Most of us here know guns that's why we are here, there are many , maybe most, folks out there that have a gun, got it prior to any testing or had it left to them from a dead spouse, just for home protection, and have no clue if it even works.
My aunt had one like that, my uncle being head of the gun club made sure when he passed that he left her one of his 38's, she's 89, and can't remember how to load it, she's not senile just hasn't seen it in 40 years. So folks like that could use a little help.

kingpin008
April 30, 2011, 10:47 AM
Gym - you miss the point. If people want to voluntarily go to have their guns checked out and/or explained to them, there are already places for them to go - namely gunshops, gunshows, and gunsmiths.

Beyond that, what more is needed? If people aren't already taking advantage of these obvious sources of information and training, why do you expect them to seek it out from yet another source?

Classified00
April 30, 2011, 12:25 PM
Why, oh why, do people want MORE .gov intrusion into their 2A rights? :confused:

Why? :confused: :confused:

Be a responsible consumer, like for every other product you purchase (or don't and self select out of the gene pool). :cuss:

Pigoutultra
April 30, 2011, 01:49 PM
Wasn't there a time in history where it was interpreted that the 2nd Amendment only protected "weapons suitable for military use"? Now for some reason they think it only protects "weapons suitable for sporting use", but in reality it protects both.

Nushif
April 30, 2011, 01:54 PM
Legislation in this direction does provide a pretty slippery slope for sure.

But I do kinda like the idea of some sort of voluntary checkout station, maybe hosted by some local gunsmiths? I think that'd promote the shooting sports, too.

Classified00
April 30, 2011, 02:28 PM
"Wasn't there a time in history where it was interpreted that the 2nd Amendment only protected "weapons suitable for military use"? Now for some reason they think it only protects "weapons suitable for sporting use", but in reality it protects both."

No. There was not. Read the constitutions of the states that ratified the US Constitution. Many of them, like my home state of Pennsylvania, use much clearer verbiage and tie the RTKBA to self defense.

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

This thread is getting scarier and scarier. If we lose our 2A rights, it won't be because if the anti's. It will be because of gun owners like some who are posting in this thread.

GRIZ22
April 30, 2011, 02:31 PM
I can see it for things like cars. If they malfunction, they may harm someone else on the road.

NJ has even done away with their biannual safety inspection. Only emissions and that's a Fed requirement. I've had cars that passed inspection and had the brakes go out a few days later. There's really little evidence that supports safety inspections really do anything to keep cars on the road safe. Now if NJ can only fix their gun laws.

I think people should have some type of competency with a firearm to carry it. I'm not supportive of any thing that will involve the government to do so. I don't support public speaking tests to exercise your 1st Amendment rights either (many forget that the Constitution is more than the 2A).

People are going to do what they want to do. I know people who bought guns back in the 60s as they were afraid of the riots at the time. Never shot it and perhaps they would have been better served by buying a Louisville Slugger.

NMGonzo
April 30, 2011, 05:21 PM
Jimenez still in business?

akodo
April 30, 2011, 05:24 PM
No

not even just no

HELL NO

This opens a whole new can of worms. It's a great way to start eliminating legally owned guns with

'oh, this one is too weak...this one is too powerful...this one the trigger is too light...this one the ammo doesn't expand enough, it will hurt bystanders...this one is loaded with those evil black talons'

Just a suggestion, even a voluntary system where folks "especially non gun folks" could take a gun and have a volunteer saftey check it and maybe make a few suggestions, like I would check that firing pin, or your culinder head space is off so bad it may blow up if you need it.

you really think someone couldn't right now walk up to ANY gunsmith or gunshop (note gunshop not sporting goods store with gun department) and say 'hi, I have a CCW, and I am not sure if my gun is in good enough shape, can you take a look at it and give me some feedback'? that the vast majority of gunsmiths and gunshop people would do it either for free or for a nominal charge?

so basically we already have an informal voluntary system in place.

shockwave
April 30, 2011, 05:26 PM
Why do you care what anyone else carries?

None of your beeswax. None.

You go ahead and take care of your own gear, and don't worry about what anybody else is doing.

AethelstanAegen
April 30, 2011, 05:39 PM
holy slippery slope batman.

Hahaha! That comment made my day. :D

22-rimfire
May 1, 2011, 11:36 AM
I don't even understand why someone in this forum would even pose it as a legitimate question in the first place unless a new bill was proposed in a state or Congress. Mind boggling. Yeah, we need more government intervention so that a defacto firearm registration system happens like a hole in the head. Oh, lets add in a per gun fee for the inspection.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
May 1, 2011, 11:37 AM
Yes, the standard should be that you are breathing and you are not blind.

Friendly, Don't Fire!
May 1, 2011, 11:39 AM
Oh, sorry, I see you meant the weapon, not the person.
Excuse my post.

gym
May 1, 2011, 11:50 AM
Rimfire:That's because you didin't read the entire post, it never had anything to do with govenment, it was a neighboor helping neighboor idea, which you could see if you really read it from beginning, middle, and end. I dropped the idea for valid reasons that we "discussed" as this is a discussion foum about guns. The high road was, that a lot of foks, especially "older folks", have guns, and don't even know what caliber they are and haven't shot them ever, They also have a false bravado that should anyone come in, "as my next door neighboor, and many others I speak to" I'll blow their heads off, and the wife chimes in, they won't get through the door. Meanwhile I find the shotguns not loaded, and she can't tell me if the pistol is an automatic or a revolver.
So stop with the conspirecy theories, they aren't going to a gunsmith. They wouldn't know enough to realize they needed one. There are a lot of aging citizens who could use a helping hand now let's put this to bed.

Classified00
May 1, 2011, 12:16 PM
Gym,

Ask yourself why you're asking this question. Why are you concerned about your neighbor's guns? Are you just as concerned about your neighbor's space heaters, storage of gasoline/paint/other flammable items? Google how many house fires start each year due to improper space heater use and improper storage of flammable material. Why do you put firearms in a different category (requiring special inspection) then every other danger in your neighbor's home?

You are doing the work of our enemy by spreading unrealistic fear. You are far more likely to have your home destroyed by a fire originating in your neighbor's house then are to be injured/killed by a stray bullet. Ask yourself why you're concerned about one and not the other. It's because you buy into the very propaganda that you should be trying fight.

Deanimator
May 1, 2011, 12:39 PM
And who's going to set that "standard"?

The same kind of imbecile who thinks that a barrel shroud is that "shoulder thing that goes up"?

I want low IQ political hacks LESS involved in meddling with the right to keep and bear arms, not MORE.

gym
May 1, 2011, 12:51 PM
Classified I'm not spreading or fear mongering, just trying to help people, scince everything has to have a deep hidden meaning to some of you, as I said about 25 posts ago, it may not have been my best idea, but some won't let it die, an it's maily because they want to infinge on this to spout their own propoganda, "not you" but read the entirer thing and you will see, this is nothing new here we get guys that read 1 post in the middle of a 4 page discussion and go out to left field on a rant about somethin entirely other than where we were going.it's almost 80 posts that should have stopped 50 posts ago buy someone keeps picking it up and changing the meaning. I sad fine it was not an accepted idea buy yet it keeps going, dragging in more junk as it goes on. Sometimes it's as if it's just argument for arguments sake, know what I mean. A true Debater, can take either side of the issue and make valid points for it until the sun sets, even if they don't care what the question really was, they just keep hitting you with words to make their point. This occurs here more frequentlly than it should, this is not a constitutional issue. It was about educating people who didn't have acess to anyone to help them, like many older folks do, we can play at this forever and see if we can break a record for the longest post in history or drop it here.

MtnSpur
May 1, 2011, 02:41 PM
;)Lock her up and put her to sleep

TexasRifleman
May 1, 2011, 02:53 PM
Sounds like a good idea.

If you enjoyed reading about "Should there be a minimum standard for CCW guns" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!