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 Ogre No card involved, no test to take, just sit and listen to a safety presentation specific to your weapon purchase. You ...

Page 35 of 36 FirstFirst ... 25313233343536 LastLast
Results 511 to 525 of 532
Like Tree138Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #511
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    No card involved, no test to take, just sit and listen to a safety presentation specific to your weapon purchase. You are all about the RIGHTS but not about the RESPONSIBILITIES associated with those rights. How bout if the mfg. required the training or it voided any warranty, sign a waiver accepting full responsibility for ALL damages caused by the use of the weapon..
    I don't want to disarm or ban anything, I want to make sure everyone knows basic gun safety.


    Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
    No card huh. Not counting my collection I have 8 guns and wife has 4. We have to sit for a class each time we buy a gun? If there is no "card" how will they know we have had a class before? Or do you advocate a class for each purchase.
    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

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #512
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292

    Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

    Do you have your CCP (or whatever it's called in your local) if so I also advocate eliminating any checks/training for anyone who has taken the time to procure said permit. Background check for permit should suffice to buy additional firearms, why do it again?

    See I do agree that anyone who desires a CCP is responsible enough to seek training on their own.


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

  4. #513
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292

    Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

    Add in, do you currently walk in, give the salesman tour money and say gimme whatever this will buy or do you ask questions, research, have him point out features?


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

  5. #514
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    Do you have your CCP (or whatever it's called in your local) if so I also advocate eliminating any checks/training for anyone who has taken the time to procure said permit. Background check for permit should suffice to buy additional firearms, why do it again?

    See I do agree that anyone who desires a CCP is responsible enough to seek training on their own.


    Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
    Guess folks in VT and other no permit states are screwed with your plan. For every purchase they will have to take a class.

    So, I guess I have not had my coffee this morning. You are saying that you don't need mandatory training to carry conceal on the assumption that they will get training, but for folks that want to buy a gun and not carry you have to have a class to purchase each firearm.

    As far as how i purchase a firearm it really is none of your business and that is my point...it is nobody's business.
    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

  6. #515
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292

    Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

    As far as I know public safety is the publics business and last I checked I am part of the public. My idea provides for the least amount of inconvenience while assuring that most gun purchasers have at least had the 4 rules of gun safety presented to them. I know quite a few gun owners that did not know those basic rules til I taught them.


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

  7. #516
    Member Array Rick2013's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Jonesboro, Louisiana
    Posts
    27
    I don't care for the mandatory part, I do feel that the responsible person carrying will prepare themselves with practice and training.
    OD* likes this.

  8. #517
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    As far as I know public safety is the publics business and last I checked I am part of the public. My idea provides for the least amount of inconvenience while assuring that most gun purchasers have at least had the 4 rules of gun safety presented to them. I know quite a few gun owners that did not know those basic rules til I taught them.


    Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
    Well, which one is it now? You are talking about folks in the public and you are in the public.....But just a tad earlier you said that folks that get a CCP do not nee mandatory training because you assume they will do it on their own?

    Not being a jerk here but can you articulate exaclty what you want or think should be law. Just seems like your ideas go back and forth.
    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

  9. #518
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    No card involved, no test to take, just sit and listen to a safety presentation specific to your weapon purchase. You are all about the RIGHTS but not about the RESPONSIBILITIES associated with those rights. How bout if the mfg. required the training or it voided any warranty, sign a waiver accepting full responsibility for ALL damages caused by the use of the weapon..
    I don't want to disarm or ban anything, I want to make sure everyone knows basic gun safety.


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

    As I have written earlier in the thread, I would not be against a written/online test of your state's laws. (Hopyard's idea)

    Because:
    a) it protects the permit holder from breaking laws and being arrested or fined.
    b) it protects us all because less permit holders would do these things and put all our rights at risk.

    I support this because, altho I did buy and read Dave Workman's guide on WA St gun laws, I didnt really understand all their implications NOR some of the ethics behind carrying a firearm. I learned all that by discourse on the forums and at the range, reading, casually in training, etc. You do need a deeper knowlege of those laws written in legalese, just IMO, and the real consequences of them. If you had to really learn them, you might get more background on them.
    Ogre likes this.
    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. #519
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    Do you have your CCP (or whatever it's called in your local) if so I also advocate eliminating any checks/training for anyone who has taken the time to procure said permit. Background check for permit should suffice to buy additional firearms, why do it again?

    See I do agree that anyone who desires a CCP is responsible enough to seek training on their own.


    Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
    Thank you to someone who answered my question.

    You never mentioned recognizing the IDIC tho.....??
    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)

  11. #520
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    Add in, do you currently walk in, give the salesman tour money and say gimme whatever this will buy or do you ask questions, research, have him point out features?


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


    My research is usually done ahead of time but sure....when I have $$ to spend in a gun shop, I make the most of 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)

  12. #521
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick2013 View Post
    I don't care for the mandatory part, I do feel that the responsible person carrying will prepare themselves with practice and training.
    Thank you.
    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)

  13. #522
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    No card involved, no test to take, just sit and listen to a safety presentation specific to your weapon purchase.
    And if I refuse to sit and listen to your safety presentation, do I still get to exercise my fundamental rights? Why are you going to such great lengths to avoid answering the question?

    You are all about the RIGHTS but not about the RESPONSIBILITIES associated with those rights.
    No, that's a strawman. I never said that. I said I don't have any responsibility to take your safety class. I never said gun owners get to avoid responsibility for their actions. We have laws both civil and criminal to ensure all people are held accountable for their actions.

    How bout if the mfg. required the training or it voided any warranty, sign a waiver accepting full responsibility for ALL damages caused by the use of the weapon..
    You've implied an awful lot here that may even be worse than what you've been saying. Implied here is that manufacturers would assume full responsibility for all damages associated with use of the weapon. Then I would relieve them of that responsibility somehow. It's not surprising that you would advocate another principal agenda item of the anti-gun crusaders.

    I don't want to disarm or ban anything
    Then stop advocating government mandated training as a prerequisite for exercising a God given fundamental right. Stop advocating the anti-gun propaganda that is flooding our country.

  14. #523
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,633
    With All due respect to those (including the OP) who keep on claiming the thread moved off topic by bringing the 2nd into this, I have to disagree.

    We have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, no example of a privilege matters at all.. I have not seen anyone "against training" and most (if not all) advocate it, it's when it is mandatory and fees and time MIGHT cause someone to DIE while "jumping through hoops and /or saving up the $ for it" comes into the reality of this, which IMHO matters and IS "on topic" and strictly follow the spirit of this thread. At any rate there is simply no way to discuss this without bringing the 2nd into it as it must apply, too many laws and regulations seem to ignore that and we as a group should never allow that.

    IMO if folks want training it should be at no cost (other than ammo) and NOT be a precursor to owning one (mandatory or you cannot have or buy) simply because of the time constraints on "when it may be offered" and when someone may decide to do someone else harm while they "wait it out". This is simply my humble opinion.

  15. #524
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292

    Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    My research is usually done ahead of time but sure....when I have $$ to spend in a gun shop, I make the most of it!
    I believe most people on sites such as this are just like you. As are, IMHO, most who seek out CCPs. My only desire in any type if legislation would be to ensure that as many gun owners as possible are safe gun owners. I too like hopyards idea of online testing concerning laws etc. something to encourage training would not be remiss. Low or no cost access to training facilities, expedited purchasing eyc


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

  16. #525
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    As I have written earlier in the thread, I would not be against a written/online test of your state's laws. (Hopyard's idea)
    I've been agreeing with you 9MMare, but you just planted both feet into the anti-gun crowd's boat. Now, bear with me, this is going to be a long post. I hope people can appreciate this history lesson by Stephen Halbrook.

    I don't know how these CHL licensing laws came about in other states, but let's talk about Texas for a minute. Under military occupation after defeat in the Civil War, Texas was required to ratify the 14th Amendment and re-write their constitution to be consistent with that amendment. Instead, in the constitutional convention of 1868, they amended the state constitution to give the power to the legislature to limit our 2nd Amendment right "under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." That was in direct conflict with the US Constitution which of course says shall not be infringed. One of the principal purposes of the 14th Amendment was to prevent state legislatures from infringing on both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Texas, along with many other states, apparently didn't get the message.

    Then in 1870 Texas ratified the 14th amendment, and even though their constitution was now in direct contradiction to the 14th Amendment, Congress readmitted Texas to the union in March 1870. Well, what was the impact of those eight little words being added to the constitution? Just read a little Stephen Halbrook wrote on the subject:

    "The elections of 1869 were characterized by massive fraud and force. Gen. Reynolds relinquished military authority to the new governor, E.J. Davis, who assumed extraordinary powers to make arrests, suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and declare martial law. Legislators who opposed his policies were arrested so that Radicals could obtain majorities to pass their bills.[141] A state police force was organized which promoted "official murder and legalized oppression."[142]

    Does that sound familiar to anyone given our current political environment?

    "An Act Regulating the Right to Keep and Bear Arms," approved on August 13, 1870, made it illegal for one to "have about his person a bowie-knife, dirk or butcher-knife, or fire-arms, whether known as a six-shooter, gun or pistol of any kind" at any church or religious assembly, school, ball room "or other social gathering composed of ladies and gentlemen," or election precinct.[143] The act was fairly limited, although its effect on cooks with butcher knives at social gatherings is unclear.

    The far more draconian statute was passed on April 12, 1871, entitled "An Act to regulate the keeping and bearing of deadly weapons."[144] For the first time, Texas prohibited the bearing of all arms (p.658)other than rifles and shotguns at any place off of one's premises. Today's statute derives from the 1871 act passed by the Reconstruction legislature.

    Section 1 of the act provided in part:

    Any person carrying on or about his person, saddle, or in his saddle-bags, any pistol, dirk, dagger, sling-shot, sword-cane, spear, brass knuckles, bowie knife, or any other kind of knife, manufactured or sold, for the purpose of offense or defense, unless he has reasonable grounds for fearing an unlawful attack on his person, and that such ground of attack shall be immediate and pressing; or unless having or carrying the same on or about his person for the lawful defense of the State, as a militiaman in actual service, or as a peace officer or policeman, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor .... Provided, That this section shall not be so construed as to prohibit any person from keeping or having arms on his or her own premises, or at his or her own place of business, nor to prohibit sheriffs or revenue officers, and other civil officers, from keeping or having arms, while engaged in the discharge of their official duties, nor to prohibit persons traveling in the State from keeping or carrying arms with their baggage...."

    " 17. The people have been disarmed throughout the State, notwithstanding their constitutional right "to keep and bear arms." (Constitution, section 13, article 1. Laws 1871, p. 75.)

    The police and State guards are armed, and lord it over the land, while the citizen dare not, under heavy pain and penalties, bear arms to defend himself, unless he has reasonable grounds for fearing an unlawful attack on his person, and that such grounds of attack shall be immediate and pressing. The citizen is at the mercy of the policeman and the men of the State Guard, and that too, when these bodies of men embrace in them some of the most lawless and abandoned men in the State, many of whom are adventurers--strangers to the soil--discharged or pardoned criminals ....

    18. The election order ... forbids the assembling of the people on the days of election; it prohibits free speech; it is the unlawful will of the executive, enforced by him through the power of an armed police upon an unarmed people; it is the will of a despot and the act of tyrant overriding the supreme law of the land....

    19. By orders executed through his armed bodies of police, the executive has taken control of peaceable assemblies of the people ... and there suppressed free speech under threats of arrest and subjection to punishment as criminals.[146]"

    What we got from that little eight word amendment to our right to keep and bear arms was a total loss of our basic freedoms. In 1873 the Democrats defeated governor Davis, yet he tried to keep office by armed force. Armed citizens had to take over the Capital to remove him from office and put an end to the abuses of the reconstruction government. Once again, tyranny was ended by citizens willingness to ignore anti-gun edicts of a dictator and through direct armed confrontation to the government.

    In 1876, they amended the constitution to rid the state of those eight little words with the specific intention of repealing the 1871 law. Unfortunately, they didn't learn their lesson, and they allowed the legislature to "regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." Only the 1871 law was never repealed. Court cases such as Cruickshank and Slaughterhouse, virtually nullified the 14th Amendment, and that takes up to 1995 when the legislature finally came around to CHL.

    Public possession of handguns had been banned for 124 years. It wasn't an easy task to pass a bill that allowed any public carry, and the legislature compromised. They compromised with all the onerous, burdensome, and expensive CHL limitations and laws, including training, that we have today. We didn't get the training requirement because there was any rational reason for it. We got the training requirement to appease and compromise with the anti-gun crowd that was screaming about all the blood we'd be dumping in the streets. We got it because no bill would pass the legislature without it. What we didn't get was a whole scale repeal of the odious 1871 law that is essentially still on the books. It is still denying millions of citizens their most fundamental right.

    That was before Heller. That was before McDonald. That was before the Supreme court restored the 14th Amendment protection of our 2nd Amendment rights against laws exactly like Texas 46.02. The legislature can no longer regulate our 2nd Amendment at the whim of the majority. We don't have to accept bad compromises with the anti-gun crusaders to get any recognition of our rights. We don't have to accept the latest good idea whims of the majority. We don't have to rely on the legislative branch of the government, limited by the majority, to protect our rights. We now have a legitimate path through the judiciary to put a stop to these long standing abuses of our 2nd Amendment rights, and it's happening as we speak in Illinois.

    No offense 9MMare, but your great ideas are just as bad as anyone else' in this thread. It's just as bad as anything from the anti-gun crusaders putting our country at siege over gun control. It's just as bad because fundamentally you're advocating that the government usurp the power over the People to limit our 2nd Amendment right "under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe," and you're not even proposing a constitutional amendment to do it. I hope this history lesson from Texas makes it clear why we should all be willing to give up our lives to make sure that never happens again.

    My apologies for the long post. I hope everyone can appreciate this research by Stephen Halbrook as much as I have.

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 area of
,

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
Click on a term to search for related topics.