Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states - Page 27

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; States cannot violate the Constitution any more than the Feds can I'm well aware what SCOTUS has stated, I also understand they work for us ...

Page 27 of 36 FirstFirst ... 17232425262728293031 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 405 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #391
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,619
    States cannot violate the Constitution any more than the Feds can

    I'm well aware what SCOTUS has stated, I also understand they work for us and I can easily grasp SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED....

    I am not so delusional to believe that SCOTUS never makes mistakes or even often cares about our RIGHTS , sometimes it seems politics matter more on decisions (Obamacare is a very good example of this in my opinion)

    I have a very good grasp of how A Constitutional REPUBLIC works (the USA is not a democracy) . Too many of "we the people" allow those "in power" to bastardize our rights and simply accept that "as fact" when most times it is not.

    The 2nd is quite simple we have THE RIGHT to be armed at all times, without being handicapped at all by the US Government , that is the exact reason why "security of a free state" and "shall not be infringed " are clearly stated.....every politician has sworn a solemn oath to uphold the entire US Constitution ....and I expect no less, whether its POTUS or SCOTUS

    To "play along" I would love for you to "educate us" on how it's not an infringment in your view when someone is murdered after taking an EPO and they cannot legally carry because A.) they don't have a permit B.) they don't have the $ today to even apply for one. (guaranteed by the 2nd btw)

    Folks with plenty of money and no immediate threat to their lives are not the only citizens of the USA.....

    Thanks for sharing "your wish" now allow me to share mine, I really wish citizens would stop making excuses for those "in power" who are taking rights they never had the position to grant in the first place.
    dldeuce likes this.


  2. #392
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    I am calling BS on your flying purple elephant scenario.

    The MD gov. doesn't have a thing to do with Texas law for one.

    Secondly, have you even looked at the proposed legislation or introduced bills for Texas this year regarding firearms or concealed handguns?

    Jumping from what the knuckleheads are doing in D.C. to what the Texas legislature is doing is beyond the tin foil hat realm, and into the whacky weed scenarios.
    Speaking of BS, I see you completely evaded the point, once again. Being such an advocate for mandatory training as a common sense public safety measure for CHL holders, surely you would support a bill, in Texas, any other state or nationally, that mandates licensing of all firearm owners in order to implement a system of mandatory safety training for all firearm owners. It's a point I've made over and over. It's a point you have evaded over and over. If you advocate for mandatory training for CHL holders, surely you advocate for mandatory training for all other firearm owners.

  3. #393
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Mandatory training doesn't violate the 2A because it is being restricted at the state level, not the federal level. Additionally, if you have read through the various recent SCOTUS cases, they make it very clear that the 2A is not an unlimited right, just like the 1A isn't an unlimited right. They specifically stated that relating the to wearing of concealed firearms in the opinions.

    I would love for folks to get a better grasp on what the Bill of Rights, specifically the 2A actually is all about.
    OMG, now you're back arguing against the McDonald case and the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment. I suppose if you can pretend Heller never happened, it's only natural you would pretend McDonald never happened.
    Aceoky likes this.

  4. #394
    VIP Member Array varob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,451
    If there are no facts then there should be no laws.
    Suntzu, I agree with this. Unfortunately what we are seeing right now in state houses and on Capitol Hill is laws being proposed and passed to make some people feel good. No facts needed
    Aceoky and 9MMare like this.
    Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
    -Tony Soprano

  5. #395
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,619
    "Feel good legislation" that they know won't improve anything seems to sadly be the "norm" and much more so when it takes rights from law abiding folks, while they either don't prosecute real criminals or let them off/out very early.

  6. #396
    Member Array FTG-05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Lincoln County, TN
    Posts
    163
    At the risk of getting this thread back on track and answering the OP's original question: I saw this post on Arfcom this morning in a thread that is very similar to this one.

    From John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" book:

    "Training requirements

    Lott examines the effects of training requirements on crime rate and accident rate. He finds that training requirements have very little effect on both crime rates and accident rates."

    More Guns, Less Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    In addition, from post #31 from this thread over on the TFL: Went to my CCW Class this past weekend. - The Firing Line Forums Per the post's author, this data is supposed to have come from Lott's MGLC book 3rd edition (emphasis added).

    "Are you, personally and individually, safer and better able to protect yourself if you've had some decent training? Absolutely. The better trained you are, the better able you are to protect yourself and thus the safer you'll be. If you want to carry a pistol and don't get training, you're a fool.

    But are you a threat to people around you without that training? Statistically speaking, the almost certain answer is, "No."

    Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have two states very similar demographically -- Washington and Oregon. Right next door to each other on the edge of the continent, the states feature similar crime rates, similar population sizes, similar geographies, and similar political climates.

    Washington is one of the few states which had shall-issue laws long before the wave of concealed carry reforms swept the country in the late 1980s. Washington's shall-issue law passed in 1961, and the state has never had a training requirement. In Washington, to get a concealed pistol license, you go to the local cop shop, let them take your fingerprints, and give them some money. A few weeks later you get your license in the mail. No class, no test, no demonstration of proficiency or safety.

    Oregon's law is more recent, going back to 1989. Because it's a modern law instead of an old one, Oregon's statute does require that applicants take a class before they may receive a permit to carry. The statute does not specify the length or content of the class, but does require that the instructor be certified by the NRA or a law enforcement agency and that the class must include firearms safety as a component.

    With no training requirement at all in Washington, one would expect that all the untrained concealed carry people surely must cause problems here: more unintentional shootings, more accidents with firearms, more misbehavior. Something, right?

    Not so. There's no statistical difference at all between Oregon's accidental shooting rate and Washington's. None. There's no blood running in the street here.

    There is one measurable difference between the two states, however: measured as a percentage of the adult population who have carry permits, Washington has roughly twice as many permit holders as Oregon does.

    In other words, the only measurable result of Oregon's training requirement seems to be a chilling effect on the number of people exercising their right to carry a concealed handgun."
    sdprof, Aceoky, dldeuce and 1 others like this.

  7. #397
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by varob View Post
    Suntzu, I agree with this. Unfortunately what we are seeing right now in state houses and on Capitol Hill is laws being proposed and passed to make some people feel good. No facts needed
    That's exactly right. The only fact they need is that passing these laws takes them one step closer to banning guns altogether. Don't think that this national debate and these arguments only apply to the 2nd Amendment either. It never does. The leftists are openly criticizing the entire US Constitution. If they can get the public to buy into rationalizing away the 2nd Amendment, they'll turn around and use the same arguments against the first. You see it here in this thread. They use the rationalizations of past infringements on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments as rationalization for further infringements.

    You think mandatory training to own firearms is bad, wait until they get that and then rationalize mandatory training for public speaking and public practice of religion.
    Aceoky likes this.

  8. #398
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    Speaking of BS, I see you completely evaded the point, once again. Being such an advocate for mandatory training as a common sense public safety measure for CHL holders, surely you would support a bill, in Texas, any other state or nationally, that mandates licensing of all firearm owners in order to implement a system of mandatory safety training for all firearm owners. It's a point I've made over and over. It's a point you have evaded over and over. If you advocate for mandatory training for CHL holders, surely you advocate for mandatory training for all other firearm owners.
    Surely you're wrong.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  9. #399
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Surely you're wrong.
    And surely you'll enlighten us why you don't support mandatory training, along with the necessary licensing and government fees, for all gun owners.

  10. #400
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    16,421
    I call time out.
    Luis50 likes this.
    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

  11. #401
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    I go for a 9 mile run, workout, do my homework and look what I come back too......
    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

  12. #402
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,788
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I go for a 9 mile run, workout, do my homework and look what I come back too......
    You're the one who started all this.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  13. #403
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    and I thought we were all done with this two or three weeks ago with the HB 47 thread!

  14. #404
    Member Array stantheman76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Gautier, MS
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    Speaking of BS, I see you completely evaded the point, once again. Being such an advocate for mandatory training as a common sense public safety measure for CHL holders, surely you would support a bill, in Texas, any other state or nationally, that mandates licensing of all firearm owners in order to implement a system of mandatory safety training for all firearm owners. It's a point I've made over and over. It's a point you have evaded over and over. If you advocate for mandatory training for CHL holders, surely you advocate for mandatory training for all other firearm owners.
    I would argue that mandatory training training for CHL holders would be different than for any gun owner. I understand your argument but the fact is that the majority of people who own guns don't decided to carry them in public. Most gun owners keep their weapon at home or maybe in their vehicle, therefore the likelihood that they'll use their weapon anywhere else is low. Someone with a CHL carries their weapon and if they have to use it they may likely be around the general public when that happens. A little common sense training wouldn't be a bad thing because of this.

    I live in Mississippi where training is not required. You have to fill out the paper work and pass a background check. Just because you have no criminal or mental record doesn't mean you don't have a track record of stupidity though. I would not have had any problem with mandatory safety training. I received some training personally because MS does offer an extra endorsement that requires a NRA certified course and allows you to legally carry in most prohibited locations.

  15. #405
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by FTG-05 View Post
    In other words, the only measurable result of Oregon's training requirement seems to be a chilling effect on the number of people exercising their right to carry a concealed handgun."
    And this will mean squat to the people here supporting the mandatory training because what you just said is the intent. It's been the intent all along.

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.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors