Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

Children do NOT have full Constitutional rights to many of the things you listed in public schools, for instance. So no, they do not.

---

Constitutional rights only apply to the government, not to schools, workplaces, or businesses. You don't have the freedom of speech at work either. Your employer can fire you for eating a blueberry muffin or singing wheels on the bus if there is a policy against it. Your employer can revoke your Second Amendment rights on their property if they wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

How hard is this? Is there anything that shows comprehensively (big picture) that the general public in AK, VT, PA, WA, SD, WY, AL, etc. are less safe from accidental shootings than in states that have mandated training? (And it must relate to the general public because there is no required training for basic gun ownership).

---

.............................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 38special

Constitutional rights only apply to the government, not to schools, workplaces, or businesses. You don't have the freedom of speech at work either. Your employer can fire you for eating a blueberry muffin or singing wheels on the bus if there is a policy against it. Your employer can revoke your Second Amendment rights on their property if they wish.

---

?? Public schools are govt-run facilities. City, county.

Not only that, the restrictions placed on public school students, such as locker searches, have been challenged in the courts based on their rights. And they lost.

They also cant vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

?? Public schools are govt-run facilities. City, county.

Not only that, the restrictions placed on public school students, such as locker searches, have been challenged in the courts based on their rights. And they lost.

They also cant vote.

---

Yes, some schools are run by the government...and they don't strip a student of their Constitutional rights as you claim. Public schools cannot prosecute children for their speech, religious beliefs, etc. They can punish them with detentions, suspensions, etc., but they cannot criminally charge them. And schools do not search and charge during locker searches...police do.

Edit: I don't think most consider schools "the government". They are not responsible for creating, enforcing, or interpreting laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 38special

Yes, some schools are run by the government...and they don't strip a student of their Constitutional rights as you claim. Public schools cannot prosecute children for their speech, religious beliefs, etc. They can punish them with detentions, suspensions, etc., but they cannot criminally charge them. And schools do not search and charge during locker searches...police do.

Edit: I don't think most consider schools "the government". They are not responsible for creating, enforcing, or interpreting laws.

---

It doesnt matter...the schools can infringe in major ways on their rights...they cant wear certain symbols, their speech can be restricted, they are indeed subject to search without probable cause, etc. and those things have been held up in the courts.

And you ignored the fact that they cannot vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

It doesnt matter...the schools can infringe in major ways on their rights...they cant wear certain symbols, their speech can be restricted, they are indeed subject to search without probable cause, etc. and those things have been held up in the courts.

And you ignored the fact that they cannot vote.

---

As I stated, schools can do things the government can't because they aren't considered "the government". Police departments can force their employees to answer questions too...the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply if the questions are asked for employment circumstances. If they use the answers to prosecute criminally, then the Fifth Amendment does apply.
For example, if a police officer was caught doing 100 mph in a 50 mph zone, the department could force him to talk about the incident if the answers are used for internal charges. He could be terminated for refusing to answer. If the department is questioning him for criminal charges, then they must advise him of the Miranda warning.

Voting:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

The Fifteenth Amendment doesn't say voting can't be denied because of age. The Second Amendment, however, states "shall not infringe".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 38special

As I stated, schools can do things the government can't because they aren't considered "the government". Police departments can force their employees to answer questions too...the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply if the questions are asked for employment circumstances. If they use the answers to prosecute criminally, then the Fifth Amendment does apply.
For example, if a police officer was caught doing 100 mph in a 50 mph zone, the department could force him to talk about the incident if the answers are used for internal charges. He could be terminated for refusing to answer. If the department is questioning him for criminal charges, then they must advise him of the Miranda warning.

Voting:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

The Fifteenth Amendment doesn't say voting can't be denied because of age. The Second Amendment, however, states "shall not infringe".

---

Sorry, the schools are govt entitities...paid for by our tax dollars and may not abridge the other rights either, such as including a sponsoring a specific religion, and do infringe on the rights of minors and you can ignore it all you want.

And stop bobbing and weaving with voting...I provided 2 instances where the Const rights of minors are treated differently by the GOVT. So it is easy enough for the case for it to be supported in the 2A...just like they do for convicted felons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

Sorry, the schools are govt entitities...paid for by our tax dollars and may not abridge the other rights either, such as including a sponsoring a specific religion, and do infringe on the rights of minors and you can ignore it all you want.

And stop bobbing and weaving with voting...I provided 2 instances where the Const rights of minors are treated differently by the GOVT. So it is easy enough for the case for it to be supported in the 2A...just like they do for convicted felons.

---

Public schools cannot sponsor religions...but they cannot tell students they can't pray. Police cannot enter schools, search a student's pockets, and criminally charge them. Public schools cannot criminally charge students based on their speech.

I'm not bobbing and weaving with voting. I copied the Fifteenth Amendment verbatim. It does not prohibit the restriction based in age, just race, color, and previous condition of servitude...sex was later added. The Second Amendment is worded quite differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 38special

Of course trained professionals have accidents. Trained pilots crash. Trained surgeons leave things inside patients. Presidents' get bjs in their office. So what? How many more professionals would have accidents if they weren't trained? How many more pilots would crash if they hadn't been trained? How many more malpractice suits would we have if surgeons had no training?

---

And cherry-picking a handful of incidents where people carrying guns (with our without permits) as examples of the consequences of a lack of training is just as worthless a measurement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 38special

Public schools cannot sponsor religions...but they cannot tell students they can't pray. Police cannot enter schools, search a student's pockets, and criminally charge them. Public schools cannot criminally charge students based on their speech.

I'm not bobbing and weaving with voting. I copied the Fifteenth Amendment verbatim. It does not prohibit the restriction based in age, just race, color, and previous condition of servitude...sex was later added. The Second Amendment is worded quite differently.

---

This has gotten off-topic and I gave you examples where minors dont have full Constitutional rights. I shouldnt have wasted my time trying to rebut your dumb and unrealistic comment suggesting that 10 yr olds be allowed to carry in schools. No, you werent serious, you were just detracting from the discussion in general because you couldnt make your point more succinctly.

All laws that are made that affect us are suppose to be put there for a reason. Forget the Constitution for a momemt and stop the ridiculs discussion and stupid analogies about atomic weapons for a momemt. Laws are made for a purpose. And you would like to think they make sense and there is data to back up such a law. If not, there is no compelling need for the government to make ANY law..

So...where the heck is the data that even suggests that there is a significant differrence in arrest and ooopsies by CC'ers in mandatory and non mandatory states?

The only information we have so far is what TX publishes and what 38Special scrounged up about PA. And so far there is no significant differece if there is a difference at all.

I am willing to lok at any data provided. Folks say that I might not be objective? I am not the one going WAAAY off topic and bringin up Reductio ad absurdum arguemnts or strawman arguements. And yes, bringing up other examples of laws made the restrict gun rights are strawman arguments when it comes to the OP.

Q: What evidence is there that mandatory training states are safer than non mandatory states?

Rebuttal: Should we be allowed to own atomic weapons? F-16s?

Now please, someone here tell me that that is not a perfect example of a strawman arguement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SCXDm9

There were 2 guys in my CWP class that I did not feel comfortable being on the same range with! They were border line dangerous, the came together and had purchased their Glocks the week before the class and had fired them once before.

MANY people do not grow up around guns as most of us did. I think its great these people want to carry but without training... I just hope they don't do it around me!

I vote yes for required training.

---

This has little to do with the exercise of our right. The founding fathers considered it so important that they placed it 2nd in importance behind our right discuss issues such as this without fear of government censure or retribution, 2nd because they realized to protect that right we had to be able to defend it and they in their wisdom gave us that ability by giving us the means to fight against those who would take our rights away. To protect our right we must be able to use the tools thus IMO training and practice should be the partiotic duty of the individual and not done simply because the same people that would regulate that right require it.

Does the requirement of mandatory training make sense ? IMO the question should never arise; I can buy a hammer but to drive a nail properly takes practice. My thumb implores me to learn to hammer properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

And cherry-picking a handful of incidents where people carrying guns (with our without permits) as examples of the consequences of a lack of training is just as worthless a measurement.

---

And I'm pretty sure I said that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

This has gotten off-topic and I gave you examples where minors dont have full Constitutional rights. I shouldnt have wasted my time trying to rebut your dumb and unrealistic comment suggesting that 10 yr olds be allowed to carry in schools. No, you werent serious, you were just detracting from the discussion in general because you couldnt make your point more succinctly.

---

I'm not trying to detract from anything. I'm pointing out that "shall not infringe" either means shall not or it doesn't. Which is it? You're the one claiming there is no room for constitutional interpretation, not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

Hmm, I wouldnt have guessed that.

I mean, in your pic you're wearing an elephant.

---

Yes, but you should see me and that elephant run the circuit while I bust balloons with my blowgun and spear :)