Chicago could require gun owners get training, liability insurance if handgun ban ove - Page 2

Chicago could require gun owners get training, liability insurance if handgun ban ove

This is a discussion on Chicago could require gun owners get training, liability insurance if handgun ban ove within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Griffworks ... What I mean is that there should be required training in every state for CHL/P. To me, you need to ...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 67

Thread: Chicago could require gun owners get training, liability insurance if handgun ban ove

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffworks View Post
    ...What I mean is that there should be required training in every state for CHL/P. To me, you need to be conversant w/the laws, how to better carry concealed and how to properly employ/operate your firearm before you are licensed to carry same in a concealed fashion...
    2A: 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.

    Griffworks, I may have been on your page once, or at least I thought it might be a good idea. I'm sure all of us think training is a good idea, however freedom of speech, vote, or the press can be just as powerful, should we require training before we allow those?

    The problem is, that is not how 2A reads (or 1A, or 4A, etc). As pro-gun advocates, we might be pro-shall-issue for example, however all of these restrictions (training, permits to carry, back-ground checks, etc) are agressive encroachments, and your right is only a few votes away from total infringement.

    We have already given up enough ground, and the statistics don't show there is a lack of training. On the contrary, there is an abundance of criminals preying on those that can't defend themselves,. There is an abundance of politicians who have shown (Chicago for example), that you have to take every issue to the highest court (even thought the courts have clearly resolved the issue). Then, after their day in court, they still will not comply. Then, without skipping a beat, will do their best to create greater barriers in contrast to a courts decision or a law that was passed (D.C. for example).

    Provided the person does not have some sort of mental limitation (infancy, incapacity, or disability), at most, training and testing should consist of a few simple questions.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,085
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffworks View Post
    I'd like to clarify something I said earlier about training....

    What I mean is that there should be required training in every state for CHL/P. To me, you need to be conversant w/the laws, how to better carry concealed and how to properly employ/operate your firearm before you are licensed to carry same in a concealed fashion.

    I also don't see it as a bad thing for folks to go thru some basic firearms training to own a firearm - regardless of CHL/P. I don't see how it could do any harm. It's really not any different than how some states require hunters to go thru a hunters safety course (usually w/in a timeframe of two to three years) prior to being issued a license/permit to hunt - or operate a motor vee-hickle.
    No. If anything, Daley's suppositions should be a warning why this should not happen.

    Training should be encouraged and not mandated...

    Otherwise, we can apply your same way of thinking to other rights we enjoy....

    Borrowed from DaveH...from another thread http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ass-long.html:

    Apply all these pro-permit or license or pro-required-training or pro-required-proficiency test to any other constitutionally protected rights and it becomes clear why they don't fly.

    A government-issued permit or license or a government designed-required-training or government designed-required-proficiency-test to exercise religion? Yeah, Right!!

    A government-issued permit or license or a government designed-required-training or government designed-required-proficiency test to exercise the right of (free???) speech? Yeah, Right!!

    A government-issued permit or license or a government designed-required-training or government designed-required-proficiency test to exercise the right of a (free???) press? Yeah, Right!!

    A government-issued permit or license or a government designed-required-training or government designed-required-proficiency test before you can assemble, or petition the Government for a redress of grievances? Yeah, Right!!

    SCOTUS has even extended the freedom to act w/o prior restraint to "rights" not enumerated under their reading of 9A.

    Yet, folk want prior-restraint of 2A.
    Everyone has the right to exercise all rights....but also have the responsibility to obey the law. If you are going to carry a gun, you should know the laws. They are available online. But the moment The State starts infringing on that right, we are no longer free to exercise our rights without interference from the gov't.

    I lived in VA for a couple of months before I could OC without a permit. I looked at the law, saw where I could and could not carry (kept a list with me to remind myself) and also looked at the laws for use of lethal force...kept that with me too. I participated in this forum and learned much more. Fortunately in my military career, I was able to attend many advanced shooting courses (beyond the basic 50-round qual at the range)...and applied for my permit. All I had to show was my ID card in lieu of a training cert. To me, that is the way it should be. No one forced me to attend a class...whose objectives I could accomplish from the comfort of my home (safe gun handling, laws of the Commonwealth, etc.)

    If you are going to exercise a right, you also exercise personal responsibility. Don't relieve anyone of the personal responsibility to learn...encourage training....encourage others to join you shooting....BE the example....Take responsibility.....

    DO NOT encourage the gov't to levy additional requirements to exercise our rights.
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  3. #18
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,833
    If a state is going to require training, then the state should conduct it free of charge. It should be scheduled at least monthly, so it is available without long waiting periods. Transportation to and from should be provided free of charge for those who do not have transportation. There should also be no charge for the permit, once the training is completed.

    Now I don't think you'll see any of those things happening. After all, if implemented the state would lose the revenue generated not only by the permit process, but by the licensing of instructors. They're not going to give up their golden goose.
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  4. #19
    Ex Member Array Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffworks View Post
    As to registering your firearm(s), that doesn't seem like quite a big deal to me. After all, the vast majority of us are law abiding citizens, so what do we have to hide by registering our pieces?
    Here's a little history lesson for you from somebody who's actually lived in Chicago.

    Chicago HAS registration, NOW.

    How do you think the ban was enforced in the first place?


    A "moratorium" on NEW registrations was passed, effectively treating handguns in Chicago the way automatic weapons are treated nationwide.

    It's unlawful in Chicago to possess an unregistered handgun. They won't LET you register a handgun that wasn't previously registered... unless you're a part of the corrupt regime or a hanger-on of some sort.

    Registration became a BAN with the stroke of a pen.

    Still seem like a good idea?

  5. #20
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Hopefully we won't need to go through the chain of command all the way to SCOTUS to knock down whatever unconstitutional stuff Daley throws down after McDonald.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

  6. #21
    Ex Member Array Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Griffworks View Post
    I also don't see it as a bad thing for folks to go thru some basic firearms training to own a firearm - regardless of CHL/P.
    Given that the CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT requires its own officers to pass a special "strength" test before they're allowed to use M4s (a rifle a child can comfortably shoot), what do you think that "required training" is going to look like?

    But hey, if they require your 70 year old mother to pass the equivalent of Ranger school to have a handgun in her house, she'll REALLY be able to skillfully defend herself, huh?

    It's pretty clear to me that you're laboring under the misapprehension that ANY of what goes on in Chicago is about "protecting" ANYBODY but Daley and his corrupt lackeys. It's Chicago. It's about race and power, in THAT order. Any other "understanding" of the situation is delusional.

  7. #22
    Member Array MN2Go's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    MN, U.S.A.
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by cmdrdredd View Post
    ... You don't need to tell me I'm qualified to protect myself and my family at my own home. I take all responsibility once i leave the store, what happens in my home is my business unless it is illegal and protecting oneself is not illegal. Now to walk around with a concealed handgun then one should be versed in the laws of his or her state.

    So a class to explain that seems reasonable, but just to own a gun? Hell no! If you want one go buy one, the RIGHT to bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
    I've participated in several carry permit classes here in Minnesota for fun, and not one adequately explains the laws of the state. Every single instructor tried their best to avoid the germane question: "When am I legally able to use deadly force to defend myself?"

    All spent disproportional amount of time going through ammo calibers from .17MHR to S&W500, or to explain importance of proper choice of grips or custom guns -- all six hours.

    MN law provides:

    b) Basic training must include:

    (1) instruction in the fundamentals of pistol use;

    (2) successful completion of an actual shooting qualification exercise; and

    (3) instruction in the fundamental legal aspects of pistol possession, carry, and use, including self-defense and the restrictions on the use of deadly force.

    Mandatory training does not translate into being versed in the laws of the state. The more I listened, the more confused I became.

    I'm all for training, the more the better.

    Stay safe.
    If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.Ē -- Cicero

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by MN2Go View Post
    I've participated in several carry permit classes here in Minnesota for fun, and not one adequately explains the laws of the state. Every single instructor tried their best to avoid the germane question: "When am I legally able to use deadly force to defend myself?"

    All spent disproportional amount of time going through ammo calibers from .17MHR to S&W500, or to explain importance of proper choice of grips or custom guns -- all six hours.

    MN law provides:

    b) Basic training must include:

    (1) instruction in the fundamentals of pistol use;

    (2) successful completion of an actual shooting qualification exercise; and

    (3) instruction in the fundamental legal aspects of pistol possession, carry, and use, including self-defense and the restrictions on the use of deadly force.

    Mandatory training does not translate into being versed in the laws of the state. The more I listened, the more confused I became.

    I'm all for training, the more the better.

    Stay safe.
    In FL, at least where I did my class. The rules about where you can and cannot carry were discussed and castle doctrine was explained along with what is considered justified. The class was taught by an LEO who is also an NRA firearms instructor, so it may have been different than other classes. It was also less than an hour and limited to no more than 4 people at a time by appointment. I always thought that the basic laws and an understanding of the safety aspects should be required curriculum at least so that you're not throwing someone out there blind.

    Firearm training is not the same thing really when I think about it. When I think about training I think about the classes that teach defensive or tactical pistol concepts. Shooting retention and the like.

    I think the issue in my mind is this... The second amendment is what protects all our other rights in the constitution. Without it everything else can be oppressed and squashed down for "the general safety of the people". Safety of whom exactly? The politicians of course...
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  9. #24
    Member Array jackson85746's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    254
    IMHO, I think it is foolish and irresponsible to either OC or CCW without being well versed in the local laws.

    AZ just passed SB1108 which allows anyone who can legally own a firearm to carry concealed. AZ as with all other states has some peculiar restrictions. I firmly believe that, If you are going to carry; KNOW THE LAWS.

    Having said that. I do not believe that training should be mandated. It should be the responsibility of the person who chooses to carry.
    Don't tread on me or mine.
    I am comfortable laying on a rock in the sun; bothering no one. If you choose to ignore the above statement, you will wish all you had to do, is deal with a snake.

  10. #25
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson85746 View Post
    IMHO, I think it is foolish and irresponsible to either OC or CCW without being well versed in the local laws.

    AZ just passed SB1108 which allows anyone who can legally own a firearm to carry concealed. AZ as with all other states has some peculiar restrictions. I firmly believe that, If you are going to carry; KNOW THE LAWS.

    Having said that. I do not believe that training should be mandated. It should be the responsibility of the person who chooses to carry.
    I agree completely. If you don't know the law it's no excuse. You can get a ticket in most cities for jay walking, you don't need a permit or class to tell you how to walk down the street do you? It's up to you to know the law as it applies to your activities day to day. If someone does not follow the law then they should be punished for not taking the time to understand what is allowed and what is not.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  11. #26
    Member Array billzfx4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson85746 View Post
    IMHO, I think it is foolish and irresponsible to either OC or CCW without being well versed in the local laws.

    AZ just passed SB1108 which allows anyone who can legally own a firearm to carry concealed. AZ as with all other states has some peculiar restrictions. I firmly believe that, If you are going to carry; KNOW THE LAWS.

    Having said that. I do not believe that training should be mandated. It should be the responsibility of the person who chooses to carry.
    Agreed 100%. As an Illinois resident, I can't carry in public here. I have various non-resident permits that allow me to carry in other states I visit. Before I ever remove a gun from the case, I make sure that I have a firm grasp of the local laws and regulations of the state I'm going to be carrying in.

  12. #27
    Member Array Ksthumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    186
    Are criminals and gang-bangers going to register their guns and take classes ?

    The city will probably offer free classes for the disadvantaged BG's.

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array cmdrdredd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Ksthumper View Post
    Are criminals and gang-bangers going to register their guns and take classes ?

    The city will probably offer free classes for the disadvantaged BG's.
    Offering them as free targets and ballistic test subjects? Sure you can pay them, it's only fair.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    -Thomas Jefferson

    Laws are restrictive but sometimes necessary to maintain a civil society. Rights are nonrestrictive but are always necessary to maintain a free society.

  14. #29
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,847
    There's a simple solution for the likes of His Royal highness Daley: vote them out of office. If you vote for them, you get what you wish/ask for.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  15. #30
    Member Array Griffworks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Central Arkansas
    Posts
    343
    Thanks to the majority of you who've presented your views in a manner conducive to conversation/debate. I appreciate the information and tone used by the majority of folks in this thread. I understand the issue much better now and have given it more thought. Most everything I've read has been most enlightening and I appreciate the food-for-thought tones.

    I still think it better for mandatory training to be instituted for CHL/P's, but that's likely just my Active Duty mentality. Still seems that it can't be a Bad Thing, IMNSHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    It's pretty clear to me that you're laboring under the misapprehension that ANY of what goes on in Chicago is about "protecting" ANYBODY but Daley and his corrupt lackeys. It's Chicago. It's about race and power, in THAT order. Any other "understanding" of the situation is delusional.
    Up to this post, I agree w/what you had to say. However, w/this insulting tone, you lost me. It's pretty clear to me that you're someone with an extremely weak arguement, having to attack the person w/the oppossing viewpoint instead trying to convince me otherwise in a friendly, rational manner.

    What a swell fella you present yourself to be....
    Arkansas Concealed Carry Instructor #12-751

    If guns kill people, then:
    Pincels miss spel werds;
    Cars make people drive drunk;
    And spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Liability Insurance
    By Kahrdoor in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 17th, 2010, 12:11 AM
  2. Insurance for CIVIL liability suit in Self Defense Injury or Death
    By Bag Man in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2009, 09:42 PM
  3. Firearms Liability Insurance
    By Pikachu711 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2009, 11:31 PM
  4. Is firearms training a legal liability?
    By Dusty Miller in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: November 21st, 2007, 04:07 PM
  5. Liability Insurance
    By Bumper in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: February 14th, 2005, 12:54 PM

Search tags for this page

chicago firearm certification classes

,

chicago gun insurance

,

chicago gun owner forum

,

chicago gun owners insurance

,

could you buy a pistol without take a gun class in chicago

,

firearm becomes permanently unregisterable

,

florida, gun owner liability insurance

,

gun insurance chicago

,

gun training insurance

,

handgun carry liability insurance

,

how much does it cost to register your firearm in chicago

,

in chicago, if you already own a hand gun can you still register the hand gun?

,

libility insurance for handgun owners

,

required training for gun owners

,

sgt z cop chicago

Click on a term to search for related topics.