Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states - Page 31

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; At the risk of starting a whole new argument. Oh, you're doing that and since you're the OP I guess we can go along. Vehicles ...

Page 31 of 36 FirstFirst ... 21272829303132333435 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #451
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,818
    At the risk of starting a whole new argument. Oh, you're doing that and since you're the OP I guess we can go along.

    Vehicles don't need to be insured, registered or require any license to be driven, unless you do that on public roadways which are paid for by taxpayer dollars of some form. Forget the tax issue though. If I want to let my 10 yr old drive my Jeep at home or deer camp or whereever, I can without any legal responsibility, barring child endangerment, being an issue.

    By driving the auto on the road, you are using that "dangerous" piece of machinery in public on roadways which are used by other individuals. The use of the vehicle is what is prohibited without the proper paperwork, and insurance to cover any damages that may result from its use.

    The firearm isn't being used in public, it is simply being transported on ones person or in some states in the automobile. There are a number of laws which prohibit the "use" of firearms in public. By not allowing the "use" of the firearm, they are greatly restricting the ability for it to cause damage to someone else or their property. Therefore no need for insurance.

    If the "use" of firearms in public was as common as the "use" of automobiles it may be required. The state minimum requirements on insurance serves to keep the courts from being bottled up with liability cases which would result from the volume of accidents that happen daily.
    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


  2. #452
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,926
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    At the risk of starting a whole new argument. Oh, you're doing that and since you're the OP I guess we can go along.

    Vehicles don't need to be insured, registered or require any license to be driven, unless you do that on public roadways which are paid for by taxpayer dollars of some form. Forget the tax issue though. If I want to let my 10 yr old drive my Jeep at home or deer camp or whereever, I can without any legal responsibility, barring child endangerment, being an issue.

    By driving the auto on the road, you are using that "dangerous" piece of machinery in public on roadways which are used by other individuals. The use of the vehicle is what is prohibited without the proper paperwork, and insurance to cover any damages that may result from its use.

    The firearm isn't being used in public, it is simply being transported on ones person or in some states in the automobile. There are a number of laws which prohibit the "use" of firearms in public. By not allowing the "use" of the firearm, they are greatly restricting the ability for it to cause damage to someone else or their property. Therefore no need for insurance.
    Didn't know I needed training to transport a weapon that is not going to be used in public LOL.........

    If I am not allowed the use of a firearm why am I carrying it? If used improperly it can definitly cause damage.

    Yes, I am being sarcastic. But when you require liscening, training, backround checks, you start really getting into the realm of regulation. And you think that mandatory insurance isn't too far off.
    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

  3. #453
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    lol
    What's so funny about historicity?

  4. #454
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    If you guys are supporting mandatory training and testing because the darn thing is so dangerous and folks need to be liscensed why aren;t you also advocating you need liability insurance?
    They are advocating that. They are because their arguments are indistinguishable from the anti-gun crusade going on in this country.
    Aceoky likes this.

  5. #455
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    They are advocating that. They are because their arguments are indistinguishable from the anti-gun crusade going on in this country.
    The arguments are distinguishable. Carrying a gun for self defense has more concerns associated with it than simply owning or shooting a gun. We are arguing for mandatory training because PEOPLE are often unsafe and uneducated when it comes to firearms and firearm carry. The "anti-gun crowd" argues than GUNS are dangerous in and of themselves. They argue that guns should be banned because they don't like them, use them, or see the need for them. I haven't gotten that sentiment from anyone in this discussion.

  6. #456
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,926
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    The arguments are distinguishable. Carrying a gun for self defense has more concerns associated with it than simply owning or shooting a gun. We are arguing for mandatory training because PEOPLE are often unsafe and uneducated when it comes to firearms and firearm carry. The "anti-gun crowd" argues than GUNS are dangerous in and of themselves. They argue that guns should be banned because they don't like them, use them, or see the need for them. I haven't gotten that sentiment from anyone in this discussion.
    Let me ask ya question....should there be liability insurance and if not, why not. What makes it any different at this stage of the game than driving a car? You have to have a liscense...and that liscense is not just for transporting the firearm. You have to have training and take a test to get the liscense. It is so you can carried a concealed armed wepaon ready for use.
    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. #457
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,212
    As my last post I would point you to the situation of the highly trained LAPD shooting two innocent civilians and possibly two others who offered no threat at all except being in the same color of truck as the person they are running eeer huntning for.
    I think that pretty much covers the issue of mandatory training next subject?
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  8. #458
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    "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.
    You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. In one post you say the 2nd Amendment is in place to fight a tyrannical government, foreign invaders, and to protect our other rights. This implies that you support using our weapons to fight those "in power" when we feel they are encroaching. In the next post you say we should attack our government through voting and other legal avenues and that I don't need to bring up assassination teams. Is our current administration tyrannical or not? Which is it?

  9. #459
    Member Array 38special's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Let me ask ya question....should there be liability insurance and if not, why not. What makes it any different at this stage of the game than driving a car? You have to have a liscense...and that liscense is not just for transporting the firearm. You have to have training and take a test to get the liscense. It is so you can carried a concealed armed wepaon ready for use.
    No, I don't think there should be liability insurance to carry a firearm. I think it's quite obvious that the number of self defense firearm discharges are significantly lower than the number of automobile collisions. I would venture to say that there are more wrecks in a day than shootings in a year. Additionally, vehicle insurance primarily exists to protect banks and loan organizations, not for medical care.

  10. #460
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Let me ask ya question....should there be liability insurance and if not, why not. What makes it any different at this stage of the game than driving a car? You have to have a liscense...and that liscense is not just for transporting the firearm. You have to have training and take a test to get the liscense. It is so you can carried a concealed armed wepaon ready for use.
    I know you weren't asking me, and that you're on the side of the argument that doesn't support any kind of mandatory training, but let me answer this question. There is quite the distinction between the two. Even if mandatory training happens, it should be provided at little to no charge. The same is not true for insurance. The rate that insurance would charge on something like this make it prohibitive for certain parts of the public to own weapons. In short, it's restricting the Right to Bear Arms to only those that can afford it - making you pay for using your 2A right. That, IMO, is the exact same thing as a Poll-tax and as such, it has been struck down by SCOTUS.

    Anyone fighting against this kind of legislation (see California) should link the two together - paying for using rights is wrong, whether it's a poll tax or carrying a weapon.

    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. In one post you say the 2nd Amendment is in place to fight a tyrannical government, foreign invaders, and to protect our other rights. This implies that you support using our weapons to fight those "in power" when we feel they are encroaching. In the next post you say we should attack our government through voting and other legal avenues and that I don't need to bring up assassination teams. Is our current administration tyrannical or not? Which is it?
    You've created a false dilemma here. There are many other choices than answering "yes" or "no." For instance, I'd answer that it is heading in that direction, and has been for a number of years. The question however, is "what is tyrannical?" One person's tyranny is another person's typical politics. Until the President moves against the people (and no, he hasn't done that yet. He's won elections and rammed things through congress, but he hasn't moved against the people as of yet), talk of tyranny is much like the Christians in America that claim persecution because something didn't go their way, while in Iran, China, and other countries, Pastors and Christians are still being martyred for their faith.

  11. #461
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292
    Just for giggles, I thought I would post this idea that came to me:

    Not so much mandatory training for CCW, but a free class (required) before purchase of a firearm(from a store) on SAFETY. You buy a gun, you get a 30 min (more or less) class on the safe handling of said firearm. If possible, the store could also provide cheapo ammo for a test fireing of the weapon. NOW, if you have your CCW, and documentation stating that you have attended a safety class (with in the past 5 years or so) you do not have to participate, you walk in, show your ID, pay your money and leave.

    I will say that I have NEVER been a proponent of mandatory training on marksmanship, laws or what have you-that is a responsiblity issue that I feel people who get a CCW ought to look into on their own. I HAVE been a proponent of mandatory SAFETY training-even if most of the trainees ignore it or forget it when they walk out the door, if even one person is saved from an accident or ND because of said training it is worth the inconvenience to the rest of us (IMHO)

  12. #462
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Let me ask ya question....should there be liability insurance and if not, why not. What makes it any different at this stage of the game than driving a car? You have to have a liscense...and that liscense is not just for transporting the firearm. You have to have training and take a test to get the liscense. It is so you can carried a concealed armed wepaon ready for use.
    I don't think any company would want to get into that business, but if they did you can bet
    somehow the legislature would become convinced that mandatory CC insurance was
    an absolute necessity to go with your CHL; especially if the company guys were friends of
    friends of the governor.

    In point of fact, many have posted here about various forms of CC insurance, most appear
    to be not worth the money. Good solid insurance that wasn't full of weasel terms and gotchyas
    would perhaps be worth having if the price reflected the actual low risk to the underwriter.

    E.g., 500,000 license holder -- how many accidental shootings of a third party or damage to property
    of a third party by a license holder each year? The premiums could probably be very low.

    Any actuaries out there?
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #463
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    Just for giggles, I thought I would post this idea that came to me:

    Not so much mandatory training for CCW, but a free class (required) before purchase of a firearm(from a store) on SAFETY. You buy a gun, you get a 30 min (more or less) class on the safe handling of said firearm. If possible, the store could also provide cheapo ammo for a test fireing of the weapon. NOW, if you have your CCW, and documentation stating that you have attended a safety class (with in the past 5 years or so) you do not have to participate, you walk in, show your ID, pay your money and leave.

    I will say that I have NEVER been a proponent of mandatory training on marksmanship, laws or what have you-that is a responsiblity issue that I feel people who get a CCW ought to look into on their own. I HAVE been a proponent of mandatory SAFETY training-even if most of the trainees ignore it or forget it when they walk out the door, if even one person is saved from an accident or ND because of said training it is worth the inconvenience to the rest of us (IMHO)
    Your idea is similar to the one I've posted here before, that the industry could readily develop the
    equivalent of the SCUBA diver's C card. No card, no air. No card, no gun purchase or no
    ammo purchase. It could all be done privately with absolutely no government inolvement.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  14. #464
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    The arguments are distinguishable. Carrying a gun for self defense has more concerns associated with it than simply owning or shooting a gun.
    I just got through going through with someone else. They evaded any response. Let's see how you do.

    Every gun can be used for self defense. Every gun can be involved in accidental discharges. Whether it's kept at home, at a business, kept in a glove box of a car, carried openly, carried concealed. Every gun owner can encounter the public wherever he is. Every gun owner can encounter complicated scenarios that may provoke them into firing their gun or threatening with their gun in self defense. Those scenarios involve exactly the same public safety issues and the same criminal laws almost irregardless of where the incident happens. The only exception being, for example, the prohibited places laws that many states have passed that apply only to public carry.

    Why just mandatory training for CHL holders? Why not for all gun owners? When we get an answer from anyone on your side without any special pleading, we'll see how your arguments are exactly like the arguments unapologetic anti-gun crusaders are making all over the country.

    We are arguing for mandatory training because PEOPLE are often unsafe and uneducated when it comes to firearms and firearm carry.
    You just said mandatory training without any qualifiers for public carry or CHL, and you should. Your rationale demands it. You should admit that your arguments necessarily demand that every citizen in this country should be denied their 2nd Amendment rights in their entirety until they complete some mandatory training defined at the whim of the majority.

    Now let's be honest. PEOPLE are often unsafe regardless of their training and experience with firearms. No amount of training is going to change that. This is exactly what the anti-gun crusaders are saying. It's what you're saying. They are just honest and outspoken about what they think the solution is. Same arguments, you just won't admit the conclusions your arguments necessarily lead to, ie PEOPLE just shouldn't have firearms.

    The "anti-gun crowd" argues than GUNS are dangerous in and of themselves. They argue that guns should be banned because they don't like them, use them, or see the need for them. I haven't gotten that sentiment from anyone in this discussion.
    Oh please. That's a complete strawman. You strawman their arguments and then claim yours are different. Whether they go after guns or people, the bottom line is they don't want us to have guns, and they're using your exact arguments. I referenced a Maryland bill that is demanding mandatory training and licensing for all gun owners, right along with all the popular gun and magazine bans. If we could get them to separate the gun bans from the training and licensing, you'd have to support the training bill. It's right up your alley.

  15. #465
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    As my last post I would point you to the situation of the highly trained LAPD shooting two innocent civilians and possibly two others who offered no threat at all except being in the same color of truck as the person they are running eeer huntning for.
    I think that pretty much covers the issue of mandatory training next subject?
    Or how about the cop who just left his gun at a school event, and an inmate on a work program turned the gun in before any of the kids surely would have picked it up and started running around the school shooting people with it? Oh wait, did he get training? Why ..... probably yes.

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.