heavyshooter
Member
No one has responded to my comment about the bullet holes in my roof (post #246). Does no 2nd amendment privileged citizen fire rounds into the air in your community?
Heavy
Heavy
Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?
- Thread starter heavyshooter
- Start date
- Status
After reading through all 12 pages I'm going to throw my couple of pennies in:
1. You actually do have a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. You can be found liable for any injuries/damages incurred if it was found to be unjustified. The law will judge you after the fact to determine if you actions were correct. The Constitution won't protect you from criminal acts.
You have a right to self-defense & a specifically enumerated right to carry a weapon to effect that defense. You can also be found liable for injuries if your actions were to be found unjustified. The law will judge you after the fact to determine if you actions were correct. The Constitution won't protect you from criminal acts.
2. Do you advocate testing & permitting for any dangerous tool what so ever? Nail guns, Chain saws, Archery equipment? The list of items you would need a permit for would never end. Do you have any idea how many robberies, assaults, rapes & murders are performed each day with a knife? Why not license kitchenware? Accidents happen all the time with these & a hundred other tools everyday that cause other people to die.
3. You have a right to be safe but you do not have a "right" to "feel safe". Just like you don't have a "right" to not be offended by others free speech. I could ask you to show me anywhere that it is written that you have this "right" but with the success others have had asking to provide proof of other statements, why bother?
4. Someone here said that they used to think that there should be no test until they realized how easy it was - for them. What if someone else thought it was difficult? Your standards could be very different from somebody else. A person who is a champion pistol shooter would think that most tests are easy compared to the average gun owner. Who's standard do we use? Which is related to...
5. Why do people who support testing for others always think they are the safest gun handlers around & everybody else sucks?
1. You actually do have a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. You can be found liable for any injuries/damages incurred if it was found to be unjustified. The law will judge you after the fact to determine if you actions were correct. The Constitution won't protect you from criminal acts.
You have a right to self-defense & a specifically enumerated right to carry a weapon to effect that defense. You can also be found liable for injuries if your actions were to be found unjustified. The law will judge you after the fact to determine if you actions were correct. The Constitution won't protect you from criminal acts.
2. Do you advocate testing & permitting for any dangerous tool what so ever? Nail guns, Chain saws, Archery equipment? The list of items you would need a permit for would never end. Do you have any idea how many robberies, assaults, rapes & murders are performed each day with a knife? Why not license kitchenware? Accidents happen all the time with these & a hundred other tools everyday that cause other people to die.
3. You have a right to be safe but you do not have a "right" to "feel safe". Just like you don't have a "right" to not be offended by others free speech. I could ask you to show me anywhere that it is written that you have this "right" but with the success others have had asking to provide proof of other statements, why bother?
4. Someone here said that they used to think that there should be no test until they realized how easy it was - for them. What if someone else thought it was difficult? Your standards could be very different from somebody else. A person who is a champion pistol shooter would think that most tests are easy compared to the average gun owner. Who's standard do we use? Which is related to...
5. Why do people who support testing for others always think they are the safest gun handlers around & everybody else sucks?
What does that have to do with the topic of the thread? If the bullets ended up in your roof the person who shot them obviously knows how to shoot a gun. Besides isn't there some law against that kind of act anyway?
A training course to establish competence will not solve all problems (like this one). You can't fix stupid...unless you're now advocating that we need to take an IQ test in order to possess a gun? The slippery slope is, indeed, slick.
expvideo
Member
You're right; that analogy is unfair. Driving is not a constitutionally protected right.
I do just want to remind us all that this IS an arguement to solve a problem that DOESN'T EXIST.
There are NOT telling and distrubing cases of licensed CCW holders shooting people accidently while attempting to use the weapon.
If there ARE isolated cases, we STILL have bigger things to worry about.
Period.
-- John
There are NOT telling and distrubing cases of licensed CCW holders shooting people accidently while attempting to use the weapon.
If there ARE isolated cases, we STILL have bigger things to worry about.
Period.
-- John
Good morning class, today we will turn to considering constitutional law.
This is obviously a constitutional question.
The Constitution is a social contract whereby the People gave certain powers and authority to the government. The Constitution is a limiting document upon the government. If the authority is not clearly given to the government is retained by the People.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that strict scrutiny shall be the standard applied in the analysis concerning possible conflicts concerning constitutionally protected fundamental right like the 2nd amendment.
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
I submit that the government requirement of a skill test in order to get a concealed weapons permit fails the first test.
Not only is there no basis in fact to prove that such a test would save lives; on the contrary, the reduction in numbers of permits issued would be detrimental to society because it would cost lives. There is concrete evidence that the more concealed weapons permits issued in a community the greater the detriment to violent crime and the more lives are saved. The government would have to prove that there is a problem that they are addressing, not that there might be a problem. They would have to have clear evidence that untrained concealed weapons permit holders were harming innocent people in significant numbers as compared to trained permit holders.
What that number of innocent people shot would be? I have no idea. What if the number of innocent people shot by trained permit holders was actually greater?
Just because you want something or that something is desirable does not mean the government can constitutionally give it to you.
This is obviously a constitutional question.
The Constitution is a social contract whereby the People gave certain powers and authority to the government. The Constitution is a limiting document upon the government. If the authority is not clearly given to the government is retained by the People.
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided that strict scrutiny shall be the standard applied in the analysis concerning possible conflicts concerning constitutionally protected fundamental right like the 2nd amendment.
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
I submit that the government requirement of a skill test in order to get a concealed weapons permit fails the first test.
Not only is there no basis in fact to prove that such a test would save lives; on the contrary, the reduction in numbers of permits issued would be detrimental to society because it would cost lives. There is concrete evidence that the more concealed weapons permits issued in a community the greater the detriment to violent crime and the more lives are saved. The government would have to prove that there is a problem that they are addressing, not that there might be a problem. They would have to have clear evidence that untrained concealed weapons permit holders were harming innocent people in significant numbers as compared to trained permit holders.
What that number of innocent people shot would be? I have no idea. What if the number of innocent people shot by trained permit holders was actually greater?
Just because you want something or that something is desirable does not mean the government can constitutionally give it to you.
Last edited:
heavyshooter
Member
The comment about the roof was made in response to the hammer vs. gun analogy. We are unable to recognize the difference between immediate contact with a hammer and the "reach out an touch someone" effect of a firearm. If someone attacks me with a firearm, I will use my 2nd amendment rights to defend myself. How does one defend themselves against an unrelated .357 magnum fired in the distance.
Vern Humphrey
Member
That's because there are no statistics to compile. CCW holders are not shooting innocent people by accident.
If they were, the media would be all over it.
Closed at the OP's request.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
