Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states - Page 28

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; Originally Posted by stantheman76 I would argue that mandatory training training for CHL holders would be different than for any gun owner. I understand your ...

Page 28 of 36 FirstFirst ... 18242526272829303132 ... LastLast
Results 406 to 420 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #406
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by stantheman76 View Post
    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.
    So you think that firing off a 30-06 rifle or any other firearm in an apartment with only sheet rock separating one apartment from another isn't a public safety issue? You think that homeowners will never have to face a situation where use of a firearm may involve complicated legal issues that are directly addressed in CHL training? You think that having a handgun in your glovebox means the gun won't ever be used in public? Don't you think that common sense training is a good thing for all firearm owners?

    And what about the criminals? I keep asking, and as usual, everyone on your side keeps evading. What training do you think we should mandate for the criminals that are actually causing all the gun related violence?

    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.
    Training won't fix stupid. We've got plenty of stupid cops and military folks who have had boat loads of training, and they still do the same stupid things that the rest of us do.


  2. #407
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    You're right. The founding fathers did not think a mandatory class was required to bear a musket during militia duties. I'm quite sure, however, that the carry of a 1911 in an IWB holster at Walmart didn't cross their minds.
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Same rationale the anti;s use to ban hi cap magaizines and "assault" weapons.
    And the founding fathers probably didn't envision radio, TV, movies, 24/7 cable news or the internet when they wrote the 1st amendment either. It probably shouldn't apply to any of those media!

    We clearly need a bunch of new laws restricting what fools idiots and insurgents can say or write on the internet and we need to lock up Piers Morgan.

    Ken
    Aceoky likes this.

  3. #408
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    386
    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.
    MANDATORY TRAINING before posting on the internet!!!! The 1st amendment is not an unlimited right!

    Ken

  4. #409
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292
    Not all laws need be based on hard data. Laws based on logic are equally viable. Logic states that training has definable benefits (see the information provided by LA regarding hunter education), logic also indicates that not everyone will get training on their own. Thus to ensure that everyone DOES get training, you mandate it. The problem arises when the law is not applied logically, or ethically.
    Instructors who only want to make a buck & jet instruct enough to pass a test. Issuing agencies who only see the money to be made on issuing permits. Etc plus the laws do dot reflect the luck and/or stupidity factor. Such laws will never eradicate all problems but they can mitigate them. DUI laws are an example, Joe may be fine after 2 beers, Tim is wasted and their BAC is the same, but the law is written to limit EVERYONE as if they are Tim.

  5. #410
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    Not all laws need be based on hard data. Laws based on logic are equally viable. Logic states that training has definable benefits (see the information provided by LA regarding hunter education), logic also indicates that not everyone will get training on their own. Thus to ensure that everyone DOES get training, you mandate it. The problem arises when the law is not applied logically, or ethically.
    The problem arises when the law systematically denies millions of people their most fundamental right. The problem arises when the law is unconstitutional.

  6. #411
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    Not all laws need be based on hard data. Laws based on logic are equally viable. Logic states that training has definable benefits (see the information provided by LA regarding hunter education), logic also indicates that not everyone will get training on their own. Thus to ensure that everyone DOES get training, you mandate it. The problem arises when the law is not applied logically, or ethically.
    Instructors who only want to make a buck & jet instruct enough to pass a test. Issuing agencies who only see the money to be made on issuing permits. Etc plus the laws do dot reflect the luck and/or stupidity factor. Such laws will never eradicate all problems but they can mitigate them. DUI laws are an example, Joe may be fine after 2 beers, Tim is wasted and their BAC is the same, but the law is written to limit EVERYONE as if they are Tim.
    But it does not answer my question. The DUI example is not valid as far as not having enough data. They did study after study after study and do have numbers to support a certain BAC limit. They didn't wing it and just make up a number.

    Hunter safety course have been hashed out already. The only commonality is firearm saftey. Hunter safety courses do not talk about laws dealing with CC'ing.

    Since we live in a country with 50 states and various laws on mandatory training for CCP/CHL's there can be numbers to gather.
    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

  7. #412
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    Not all laws need be based on hard data. Laws based on logic are equally viable. Logic states that training has definable benefits (see the information provided by LA regarding hunter education), logic also indicates that not everyone will get training on their own. Thus to ensure that everyone DOES get training, you mandate it. The problem arises when the law is not applied logically, or ethically.
    Instructors who only want to make a buck & jet instruct enough to pass a test. Issuing agencies who only see the money to be made on issuing permits. Etc plus the laws do dot reflect the luck and/or stupidity factor. Such laws will never eradicate all problems but they can mitigate them. DUI laws are an example, Joe may be fine after 2 beers, Tim is wasted and their BAC is the same, but the law is written to limit EVERYONE as if they are Tim.
    But it does not answer my question. The DUI example is not valid as far as not having enough data. They did study after study after study and do have numbers to support a certain BAC limit. They didn't wing it and just make up a number.

    Hunter safety course have been hashed out already. The only commonality is firearm saftey. Hunter safety courses do not talk about laws dealing with CC'ing.

    Since we live in a country with 50 states and various laws on mandatory training for CCP/CHL's there can be numbers to gather.
    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

  8. #413
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Let me re state this but I do not think folks will get it. The OP is not about if the law is just or Constitutional. I am granting the fact that the courts have already said it is. I am conceding that. (My personal feelings are differnt) Now, with that being said (these types of laws are legal vis a vis training) then I just want to see the justification for making such a law. Laws suppose to pass the COnstituitonal muster which I conceded just for the purposes of this thread.
    So, since laws CAN be made. The question is SHOULD they and the data behind that.

    I can make this really simple. How about those that think mandatory trainign should be law and required only respond. You obviously think it is COnstitutional so therefore we can forego all of the fluff and off topic debate.

    Now, adress the OP for those that are pro mandatory training and cough up some data.

    There...simple.
    The data exists or every other topic imaginable. Students who are taught proper reading skills early read better. Hunters taught hunting earlier have less accidents. Drivers who receive driver training are safer. Kids who have sex ed and condom availability have less pregnancies. Soldiers kill better when the training was designed to desensitize them to killing. There is no reason to believe firearms training, legal training, and proficiency training wouldn't educate carriers. That, and the data I've already given, is all I have.

    KY has a law regarding the unlicensed transport/sale of mussels (301 KAR 1:085. Mussel shell harvesting.). Have I ever used it. Do mussel issues effect me? Do I understand the purpose? Can I provide stats regarding its usefulness? No to all, but that doesn't mean it's baseless.

  9. #414
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,636
    IMHO any laws that might even begin to infringe on 2nd amendment Rights need to be based on something much more than opinions and "feelings" . The Government authorities work for us and have no business undermining any part of the US Constitution they have sworn to uphold and protect against ALL enemies, (including Domestic) some of this stuff is darn close to treason in my view

  10. #415
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292

    Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

    Yes the hunter safety classes DO apply. At least in the context of the mandatory classes I am in favor of. Basic firearms safety classes should (IMO & LOGICALLY) should be mandatory and free (to eliminate the ethical issue I mentioned) as for the DUI laws, if they are based on hard data then why the variances between states? BAC is a number, if X is drunk in AL it should be in CA.


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

  11. #416
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    Yes the hunter safety classes DO apply. At least in the context of the mandatory classes I am in favor of. Basic firearms safety classes should (IMO & LOGICALLY) should be mandatory and free (to eliminate the ethical issue I mentioned) as for the DUI laws, if they are based on hard data then why the variances between states? BAC is a number, if X is drunk in AL it should be in CA.


    Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
    It is an iterpretation of the data so the states decide what they are comftoarble with. The point is somebody did not pick a figure out of the air without any studies.
    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. #417
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    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.
    So what is your solution? A 2nd Amendment assassination team that kills any person "in power" when they do something you don't like? How do you propose "we the people" stop them from creating, promoting, and passing legislation. I think I've been clear that I not want my neighbors owning atomic bombs, grenades, C-4, mustard gas, etc. I also don't want uneducated and untrained people carrying anything around me in public. Since I support SOME 2nd Amendment legislation, do you want to take me out too?

    I'm not sure what exactly it is you're proposing we do.
    Ogre likes this.

  13. #418
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyKen View Post
    And the founding fathers probably didn't envision radio, TV, movies, 24/7 cable news or the internet when they wrote the 1st amendment either. It probably shouldn't apply to any of those media!

    We clearly need a bunch of new laws restricting what fools idiots and insurgents can say or write on the internet and we need to lock up Piers Morgan.

    Ken
    You're correct. They didn't invision those things. The FCC was then created and can impose fines for vulgarity on TV and radio. Laws have been created regarding internet pornography. Members of the press have successfully been sued for slanderous comments. People have been arrested for making threatening texts and phone calls. The 1st A is restricted.

  14. #419
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    TO believe that the USA having an armed group of citizens with > 300 million arms hasn't kept us from invasion seems to be a huge stretch at least to me. I bet the Jihad folks are hoping we end up disarmed at this very moment in fact.
    That wasn't my point. I was specifically referring to the historicity of the statement. In the rest of my post, I even referred to the fact that Japan armed it's citizens to help either stave off, or resist invasion, so I also admitted that the overall idea was indeed correct. It's the idea that a Japanese officer argued that very point to his superiors that I am stating has no historical fact - mainly because Japan had no desire to invade the US in the first place. Their entire goal was to cripple our Navy, buttress their Eastern theater, and then march through Asia to link up with Germany.

  15. #420
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,636
    "THE Solution" is simply to not allow anyone who infringes on our rights to remain in office, they work for US (not the other way around) this is a fact an no need to bring up assassination teams etc. Instead of so many threats to impeach the POTUS, here is a novel idea DO IT......... his abuse of power and disregard of the COTUS is clearly evident. IF the Congress members want to stay in office , they need to (and should be required by us) to uphold the COTUS as well....

    It is your choice to "support some " , if you want to, however there is NO basis in it for you to do so and IF you're an elected official in ANY way, you should be removed from office or resign . Anyone who would violate their own oath is not much of a public servant IMHO

    The USA is the last free country on Earth, we lose it here there is no place to go, anyone who is not happy with OUR COTUS, is always free to go elsewhere, where it doesn't exist, they're not however free to disregard any parts they don't happen to like or even agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    So what is your solution? A 2nd Amendment assassination team that kills any person "in power" when they do something you don't like? How do you propose "we the people" stop them from creating, promoting, and passing legislation. I think I've been clear that I not want my neighbors owning atomic bombs, grenades, C-4, mustard gas, etc. I also don't want uneducated and untrained people carrying anything around me in public. Since I support SOME 2nd Amendment legislation, do you want to take me out too?

    I'm not sure what exactly it is you're proposing we do.
    Ghost1958 likes this.

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