Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

This is a discussion on Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I'm not sure it is possible to "have a winner or loser" on such a debate, it is impossible to really know how much (if ...

Page 12 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2891011121314151622 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #166
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,587
    I'm not sure it is possible to "have a winner or loser" on such a debate, it is impossible to really know how much (if any ) training and/or what type(s) of training make any difference much less the best difference. People make mistakes, accidents happen man made stuff "fails" in critical ways often at bad times.

    I am not against training at all, I do have to question it being "Required" along with time and $ having a possible adverse affect on someone's lives or even if they live or not. I also think if someone has had background checks recently at work etc. they shouldn't have to wait 90 days or so (especially when you have had extensive FBI background checks done) but it doesn't seem much of this was given much consideration other than "how much revenue" can we produce while "allowing folks to exercise their own rights- which we don't grant anyway"

    When the Government starts trying to restrict Rights, that in and of itself is not a good thing IMO, when they keep lower income folks out of the process that is no doubt wrong and should not be allowed IMHO. Lower income folks live in more crime prone areas to begin with (by and large) so it seems to me to be a "double edged sword" if you will.

    Sure I want 100% safety for everyone who carries and everyone around those who carry, it is the question of is that even possible and if it were how would one go about that, it's not done on the streets and highways of any place I'm aware of, life has risks and "deadly weapons" involve much more than firearms . When a nut kills several people with any gun, it's big news, when some drunk kills a van full of people on the road, it's "normal" , seems the media "hype" is another big issue. Why should their 1st Amendment rights "trump" anyone's second?

    There must be a better and more fair way to go about this, beginning with not charging for the exercise of one's rights. IF you want to carry and IF training /testing/ permits are going to be required, the citizen should not be charged and long waits should not be the"norm" IMHO

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #167
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    The problem with your opinion here is that there is no winner or loser in this thread. Suntzu started a thread that has been thought provoking, and in the spirit of forum, a place to exchange ideas, thoughts and opinions on an issue that could be beneficial.

    But rather than participate, you have set on the sidelines like a cheerleader and occasionally stepping in with a me too, or oh yeah, we win attitude.
    But other than that, you are a non event.
    Thank you for the kind and enlightening words! Clearly I am a "non event" and you are a GOD that we must all bow down to.

    Your words, shouted from the mountain, tell us all we need to know and we appreciate that.

    Suntsu posted a sensible question, is there any empirical data to support the idea that ccw holders in those states that require training have fewer negative occurrences then those from states that don't? You, instead of trying to address the question asked have expressed your opinion (without any empirical support), which is a good thing, and bullied those that disagree with you. You kind of sound like someone who believes only law enforcement and government agents (the elite) should be allowed to carry. OK if you say so.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    I'm not sure it is possible to "have a winner or loser" on such a debate, it is impossible to really know how much (if any ) training and/or what type(s) of training make any difference much less the best difference. People make mistakes, accidents happen man made stuff "fails" in critical ways often at bad times.

    I am not against training at all, I do have to question it being "Required" along with time and $ having a possible adverse affect on someone's lives or even if they live or not. I also think if someone has had background checks recently at work etc. they shouldn't have to wait 90 days or so (especially when you have had extensive FBI background checks done) but it doesn't seem much of this was given much consideration other than "how much revenue" can we produce while "allowing folks to exercise their own rights- which we don't grant anyway"

    When the Government starts trying to restrict Rights, that in and of itself is not a good thing IMO, when they keep lower income folks out of the process that is no doubt wrong and should not be allowed IMHO. Lower income folks live in more crime prone areas to begin with (by and large) so it seems to me to be a "double edged sword" if you will.

    Sure I want 100% safety for everyone who carries and everyone around those who carry, it is the question of is that even possible and if it were how would one go about that, it's not done on the streets and highways of any place I'm aware of, life has risks and "deadly weapons" involve much more than firearms . When a nut kills several people with any gun, it's big news, when some drunk kills a van full of people on the road, it's "normal" , seems the media "hype" is another big issue. Why should their 1st Amendment rights "trump" anyone's second?

    There must be a better and more fair way to go about this, beginning with not charging for the exercise of one's rights. IF you want to carry and IF training /testing/ permits are going to be required, the citizen should not be charged and long waits should not be the"norm" IMHO
    WOW!! A clear and reasonable comment. Thank you.

    Ken

  4. #168
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I do like PA's overall approach though to be honest there are aspects of it that concern me.
    Before Mercop disappeared from this board I had talked to him about providing personal training
    to my son and his wife; and to myself via his non-ballistic combat pistol course. We never did
    get together, but I thought I'd point out that I do not think the lack of a training requirement in
    either PA or WA is wise. It is convenient for the prospective license holder, but not all that wise.

    I guess you don't count Philadelphia when you mention "no blood running in the streets."
    And on what facts or data are you basing your statement that it is not wise?
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  5. #169
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    That's because they don't exist. That they don't exist doesn't make the OP's premise valid.
    It also does not support the idea of forced time and $$ into training. That is also *exactly* what it means.

    And the training reqs are all over the board for the states. There is no idea how much training is 'enough.'

    So it's just useless additional govt interference IMO.

    Spend the same administrative $$ on state PR encouraging training and teaching safety.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  6. #170
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    Thanks 9Mmare, I think.

    I do have a point to make, regarding the 2A. Everyone quotes the last part, and ignores the first "A well REGULATED militia". Now if we can agree that militia in this case means, and the courts have agreed, all citizens (18 years old and up), then WHO regulates them? All mandatory SAFETY training would fall under such language.


    Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
    It actually struck me as funny because I am a liberal (by most standards here).

    And I find more value in the IDIC...Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. In diversity is strength.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  7. #171
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    I did not say he, specifically had no training. But what I am advocating is more educational than training. I believe there's a difference, but once again, it's open to what one defines the two as.
    Well I certainly love the idea of shooting being taught in schools but it's likely just a pipedream.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  8. #172
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Don't think so. Take a look at this link: Regulated Synonyms, Regulated Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
    That doesnt mean those are all the synonyms. Not by any means and I use such online resources all the time at work.

    Not only that, it didnt show the historical usage...which I've been told meant 'trained.'
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  9. #173
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    I agree. Even with training someone can become do stupid or careless things.

    But if we as a society in general place high value on education for the advancement of everything that is worth doing, doesn't it stand to reason that proper firearms education would be an asset to all of us concerned here?

    .
    IMO it's more a matter of perception than anything else. Everyone has accidents. Anyone can use poor judgement and there are individuals out there that are much more prone to it. And those walking around impaired or mentally ill. Anyone can be distracted for a moment. Anyone can freeze or screw up under stress.

    These ^^ same people drive vehicles everyday...and cause accidents and injure/kill people everyday. Way more than shoot guns off. And no one lives in fear of cars and no one stops using them. We do driver's education, we have loads of commercials on safety and laws. Public service announcements and even training.

    NOTHING is completely safe and people need to stop expecting other people to keep them so. Guns are dangerous. Pools are dangerous. Cars are dangerous. Trampolines and bicycles are dangerous. They injure far more people than guns (altho the recreational stuff doesnt kill more, but they certainly disable).

    If there is no reasonable evidence that mandatory training makes a difference, then I am still against it.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  10. #174
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Don't think so. Take a look at this link: Regulated Synonyms, Regulated Antonyms | Thesaurus.com
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    That doesnt mean those are all the synonyms. Not by any means and I use such online resources all the time at work.

    Not only that, it didnt show the historical usage...which I've been told meant 'trained.'
    Google "meaning of well regulated" turns up many interesting things including:

    Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
    The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
    and a really interesting article that includes in part:

    The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions
    This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
    Ken

  11. #175
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292

    Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

    I find it interesting that in HELLER, SCOTUS stated that their ruling applied to firearms ownership and use in the home.
    The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
    They further stated that their ruling ONLY applied to laws which for all intents & purposes BANNED citizens from owning/using firearms for legal purposes. Laws which limit firearms carry/ownership still remain constitutional as long as those limits do not outright ban firearms.
    Laws requiring licensing to carry are not unconstitutional, licensing laws which are tantamount to banning are. Requiring safety certification is not unconstitutional, provided the requirements are not arbitrary and are equally applied.


    Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.

  12. #176
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    I noticed you didn't acknowledge what these training laws did to your analogy when you apply the same laws and the same rationale in support of the laws against the 1st Amendment.



    They haven't regulated the 1st Amendment the way you are advocating regulating the 2nd because it's unconstitutional.



    Nonsense. Nothing is specifically enumerated in the 9th amendment. There's nothing specific about the word "others." It was impossible to specifically enumerate the "others." They enumerated the ones that were most pressing to the tyranny they had just faced and to those that were most crucial for their fight against that tyranny.



    Are you advocating mandatory training in this thread? Then by definition, if you're advocating the government having the power to deny everyone their right unless they get the training. And that's what is happening. Millions are being denied their rights because of a scheme of onerous, burdensome and expensive laws including training, and you are supporting that.



    You can't have it both ways. You have to deny their right before you can mandate the training. Otherwise the training isn't mandatory. It's obvious why you evaded applying the same concept to your own analogy on the 1st Amendment, because it was obvious that if the government could mandate training before they allow you to speak publicly, you wouldn't have a protected 1st amendment right at all.
    So you agree that the government has, in some sense, regulated the First Amendment? If so then you can't argue that regulation is, in and of itself, is unconstitutional. We can certainly argue about levels of regulation, but not regulation itself.

    The 9th Amendment does specifically enumerate "other" rights not mentioned in the constitution. If you read the Constitution in the context of the time, any action that furthers life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental right potected by the 9th Amendment. You cannot argue that consensual sex between adults is not guaranteed by the Constitution. It doesn't hold water. You also cannot argue that public bjs and prostitution aren't illegal. The same plies to driving, flying, bating, hunting, nd the carry of a gun. Again, the government can place restrictions on rights, liberties, and freedoms.

    You, for some reason, can't seperate the right own guns and the right to publicly carry guns. Nobody is arguing that gun purchase, ownership, or possession should be regulated. We are arguing that public carry should require training. Two seperate issues. Requiring training and a permit is not "taking rights away" anymore than requiring a drivers license or a hunting license is taking rights away, both of which are granted by the 9th Amendment.

  13. #177
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    ...
    You, for some reason, can't seperate the right own guns and the right to publicly carry guns. Nobody is arguing that gun purchase, ownership, or possession should be regulated. We are arguing that public carry should require training. Two seperate issues. Requiring training and a permit is not "taking rights away" anymore than requiring a drivers license or a hunting license is taking rights away, both of which are granted by the 9th Amendment.
    'Requiring training and a permit is not "taking rights away",' But can you make a case, with data to support it, that mandated training has a positive impact on public safety? Eight or ten (I haven't gone back to get an actual count, my apologies for being lazy) States do not require any training at all and some, like Florida (with over a million permits issued), require so little training as to be absurd. Is public safety endangered by the lack of a training requirement in those states? Can we support that contention with statistical evidence? Not so far.

    Ken

  14. #178
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,587
    You, for some reason, can't seperate the right own guns and the right to publicly carry guns
    With all due respect..

    "THE RIGHT" is to both keep AND Bear arms , carrying in public is covered and a guaranteed RIGHT "which shall NOT be infringed" hence it's "not" the right to own arms, but to keep AND bear them (carry them anywhere and everywhere by any legal citizen in fact)

    What has happened over time (and should not have IMO) is we the people have allowed others to "decide" there CAN be limits placed on things that clearly are not allowed. Infringe , encroach mean what they mean
    Ghost1958 likes this.

  15. #179
    Distinguished Member
    Array Str8upguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,252
    I don't know how many times I've been at the range and had to talk to someone about the proper direction to point their new handgun. We have driver's education, there's nothing wrong with learning how to properly handle a weapon, especially if that person is going carry that weapon in public.
    Ogre likes this.

  16. #180
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    That's because they don't exist. That they don't exist doesn't make the OP's premise valid.
    Hop: Go back and read the OP:
    I see a lot of folks saying that mandatory training and mandatory qualification is needed and should be required for a CHL. They state that it is for the protection of the public at large and for the protection of the person carrying the gun.
    I did not state a premise. I am asking for those like you that have stated a premise that mandatory training should be mandatory to "protect us from ourselves and others".

    I don't need to prove anything. I am not the one advocating government involvement and making laws to require mandatory training....you and others are. I just want to see the sata that proves it. Real simple. And as stated previously, it is fine with me if you and others believe that it should be mandatory. But I think you need to at least caveat that with "IMO mandatory training will reduce xyz" Not state it as a proven fact becasue it is far from it.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

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
  •  

Search tags for this page

powered by mybb advanced weapons

,
powered by mybb all movies
,

powered by mybb best exercise

,
powered by mybb code search
,

powered by mybb criminal law

,

powered by mybb free full movies online

,

powered by mybb free online training course

,

powered by mybb law and order

,

powered by mybb legal

,

powered by mybb paintball stuff

,
powered by mybb reference
,
powered by mybb video of potty training
Click on a term to search for related topics.