Scholarship program for training and fees?

This is a discussion on Scholarship program for training and fees? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The discussion about the new IL laws got me thinking about how prohibitive some of the requirements are to get your permit to carry (or ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: Scholarship program for training and fees?

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455

    Scholarship program for training and fees?

    The discussion about the new IL laws got me thinking about how prohibitive some of the requirements are to get your permit to carry (or even own a gun in some places). Many times those who need to be able to protect themselves the most are those least able to pay for and complete the requirements to get or carry a gun for defending themselves and their families. Wether that is the purpose of the requirements or not is a question for another thread.

    Is there a program anywhere (NRA, GOA, SAF, etc.) that provides scholarships to help people be able to jump through these regulatory hurdles? I don't think anyone should be denied the right to protect their families because they don't have the money, or can't afford to take the time off work to meet the training requirements and pay the fees. I would be willing to donate to such an organization or fund, and I am sure that many other in our community would feel the same.

    Anyone have an idea how we could get something like that started?
    Walk softly ...

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,796
    How about we all as gunowners keep pressing for no mandatory training and no permits. We are our own worse enemy since many on this site feel that all of this stuff is required and necessary and for some oddball reason they feel it is not an infringement.

    Other than, local gun clubs would be the best place to start.
    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

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    I completely agree that the training, and even permits should not be required. What part of "shall not be infringed"...

    But while we work for that, which may take a long long time, we have to work within the system. There is no training required in WA, so my local clubs don't really fit the need for this. But offering to sponsor/pay for basic training for people who need it and want to be prepared would be a good idea too.
    ThePatriot1776 likes this.
    Walk softly ...

  5. #4
    Member Array fredg53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cleveland
    Posts
    394
    I would rather see money go to kids programs as as soon as we hand anything out nowdays every bottom feeder jumps on board from Obama phone to Obama gun?

  6. #5
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Permits is just another way that the government makes you incompetent when you go to exercise a right while at the same time it turns a right in to a privilege that can be taken away by the government at a moments notice.

    permit 1) v. to allow by silence, agreement or giving a license. 2) n. a license or other document given by an authorized public official or agency (building inspector, department of motor vehicles) to allow a person or business to perform certain acts. These can include building a structure, using a building, driving on the highway, conducting a retail business, and dozens of other activities. The purpose of permits is supposedly to guarantee that laws and regulations have been obeyed, but they also are a source of public revenue.

    Since it touches upon license here is that definition as well.

    The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.

    All definitions are compliments of Legal Dictionary.

    As one can see that a permit and license are the same thing. They prove to the government that you are not competent enough to exercise your rights without their permission even though the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights say otherwise.

    I believe that training for firearms should be available through a government agency, like Department of Natural Resources, which many state Department of Natural Resources provide for hunters for a small fee.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,069
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePatriot1776 View Post
    Permits is just another way that the government makes you incompetent when you go to exercise a right while at the same time it turns a right in to a privilege that can be taken away by the government at a moments notice.

    permit 1) v. to allow by silence, agreement or giving a license. 2) n. a license or other document given by an authorized public official or agency (building inspector, department of motor vehicles) to allow a person or business to perform certain acts. These can include building a structure, using a building, driving on the highway, conducting a retail business, and dozens of other activities. The purpose of permits is supposedly to guarantee that laws and regulations have been obeyed, but they also are a source of public revenue.

    Since it touches upon license here is that definition as well.

    The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.

    All definitions are compliments of Legal Dictionary.

    As one can see that a permit and license are the same thing. They prove to the government that you are not competent enough to exercise your rights without their permission even though the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights say otherwise.

    I believe that training for firearms should be available through a government agency, like Department of Natural Resources, which many state Department of Natural Resources provide for hunters for a small fee.
    So you, who wants no infringements, licenses, or permits, wants to see the one enforcement agency in this country who can enter your house without a warrant, and is a federal agency, to charge a fee to train people how to use a firearm for self defense?

    Really?

    Hmph. And you mention false flag operations...

    "What ARE you?"

    Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  8. #7
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    So you, who wants no infringements, licenses, or permits, wants to see the one enforcement agency in this country who can enter your house without a warrant, and is a federal agency, to charge a fee to train people how to use a firearm for self defense?

    Really?

    Hmph. And you mention false flag operations...

    "What ARE you?"

    Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
    I see nowhere in my post that I want any federal government agency involved. I mentioned state Department of Natural Resources, because they already do hold classes for firearm safety that is required for a hunting license. I do not understand what you mean by "And you mention false flag operations..." and "What are you?"

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,796
    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

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,069
    It's a quote from the movie, True Grit... The recent version...

    You mention false flag operations in some of your posts... I wonder what YOU are doing...

    For a patriot, I wonder why you would suggest state or federal DNR should charge fees to class REGISTRANTS, to teach them to handle a firearm.

    Is this some back door REGISTRATION scheme?

    Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  11. #10
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    It's a quote from the movie, True Grit... The recent version...

    You mention false flag operations in some of your posts... I wonder what YOU are doing...

    For a patriot, I wonder why you would suggest state or federal DNR should charge fees to class REGISTRANTS, to teach them to handle a firearm.

    Is this some back door REGISTRATION scheme?

    Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
    I mentioned false flag operations in one post since it had all the markings of being a false flag operation. The FBI is notorious for setting up false flag operations and here's an article about the FBI doing it. http://www.stuartwilde.com/2013/04/f...ttacks-fox-tv/

    I never suggested federal agencies, but I did mention a state agency. The reason is simple because hunting is a state issue and firearms safety courses are already figured into the fee for the hunting license. My other option would be for schools to do it, like the high school I went to as a kid, but even then someone is paying for the class. Just because someone is against registration and permits/licenses does not mean that they are against training. I support training with anything because it allows a person to exercise their rights responsibly as having rights entails the responsibility of using that right safely.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,069
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePatriot1776 View Post
    I mentioned false flag operations in one post since it had all the markings of being a false flag operation. The FBI is notorious for setting up false flag operations and here's an article about the FBI doing it. http://www.stuartwilde.com/2013/04/f...ttacks-fox-tv/

    I never suggested federal agencies, but I did mention a state agency. The reason is simple because hunting is a state issue and firearms safety courses are already figured into the fee for the hunting license. My other option would be for schools to do it, like the high school I went to as a kid, but even then someone is paying for the class. Just because someone is against registration and permits/licenses does not mean that they are against training. I support training with anything because it allows a person to exercise their rights responsibly as having rights entails the responsibility of using that right safely.
    You fight for the literal reading of the Second Amendment, which mentions no training, yet you suggest training.
    Edit to add... Training by the gubmint... State or Federal...

    Hmmm... Curiouser and curiouser.

    Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array blitzburgh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    3,738
    Quote Originally Posted by BigStick View Post
    I completely agree that the training, and even permits should not be required. What part of "shall not be infringed"...

    But while we work for that, which may take a long long time, we have to work within the system. There is no training required in WA, so my local clubs don't really fit the need for this. But offering to sponsor/pay for basic training for people who need it and want to be prepared would be a good idea too.
    Good idea and I too would be willing to donate something to such a cause.
    "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God." - Benjamin Franklin
    "Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." - C.S. Lewis

  14. #13
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    You fight for the literal reading of the Second Amendment, which mentions no training, yet you suggest training.
    Edit to add... Training by the gubmint... State or Federal...

    Hmmm... Curiouser and curiouser.

    Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
    Actually, the Second Amendment does specify training. Here is the text itself.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Well regulated means to function flawlessly and with training to make it in perfect working order. To be able to have the people well regulated requires training. The Second Amendment goes hand in hand with Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16.

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Disciplining the militia means to set down the standards of training. Here is the definition of disciplining from Webster's 1828 Dictionary which is the closest dictionary to how the founding fathers used the word.

    DISCIPLINING, pp. Instructing; educating; subjecting to order and subordination; correcting; chastising; admonishing; punishing.

    The Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government, but not the state governments. The states are able to govern themselves as they see fit, but are required to provide for training of the militia. Nothing I've said is contradictory to the strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.

    EDIT: For clarity here is the definition of Discipline from Webster's 1828 dictionary.

    DISCIPLINE, n. [L., to learn.]

    1. Education; instruction; cultivation and improvement, comprehending instruction in arts, sciences, correct sentiments, morals and manners, and due subordination to authority.
    2. Instruction and government, comprehending the communication of knowledge and the regulation of practice; as military discipline, which includes instruction in manual exercise, evolutions and subordination.
    3. Rule of government; method of regulating principles and practice; as the discipline prescribed for the church.
    4. Subjection to laws, rules, order, precepts or regulations; as, the troops are under excellent discipline; the passions should be kept under strict discipline.
    5. Correction; chastisement; punishment intended to correct crimes or errors; as the discipline of the strap.
    6. In ecclesiastical affairs, the execution of the laws by which the church is governed, and infliction of the penalties enjoined against offenders, who profess the religion of Jesus Christ.
    7. Chastisement or bodily punishment inflicted on a delinquent in the Romish Church; or that chastisement or external mortification which a religious person inflicts on himself.


    In the case of the Second Amendment and Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16 the correct definition of discipline is 2 & 4 since they relate to the militia.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,069
    You're right, of course, about the militia being regulated (trained up).

    However, the right of the people is to bear the arms... And, at the time of the founding (not "constitutional", BTW)... Citizens who were conscientious objectors were allowed to send paid proxies to musters. Did that mean that those objectors had no right to arms for self defense? I think not.

    So, where in the individual right to keep and bear is the need for "regulation?"

    Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  16. #15
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    You're right, of course, about the militia being regulated (trained up).

    However, the right of the people is to bear the arms... And, at the time of the founding (not "constitutional", BTW)... Citizens who were conscientious objectors were allowed to send paid proxies to musters. Did that mean that those objectors had no right to arms for self defense? I think not.

    So, where in the individual right to keep and bear is the need for "regulation?"

    Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
    I already explained where the need for regulation is in the Second Amendment with the phrase "well regulated". The militia is comprised of all citizens between the ages of 18-50 which is part of the United States Code and state laws. Both types of laws specify organized and unorganized militias. The organized is defined as the National Guard, which I disagree with since they are a federal military force. The unorganized is every citizen between the ages of 18-50 that are not currently serving in the National Guard or the federal military.

    In order for something to be well regulated requires training which means education i.e. discipline. I see no contradiction between what I've said concerning the mandating of training in the Second Amendment through a strict interpretation. In fact, up until after the Civil War, citizens were trained up to the regulations of the United States military and served as the backbone of the Union and Confederate armies in the early years of that war. Some of these militia groups used State Legislative officer appointments or were elected into command position by the members of the militia group. A good example of this is Jefferson Davis was in the militia and held a commission through his state legislature while Abraham Lincoln was commanding officer of his militia company by a direct election of the members of his company. See The Militia Act of 1792 for further details. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

    Since this goes hand in hand with what we're talking about here is the War Drill Manual passed by the Continental Congress March 29, 1779 that The Militia Act of 1792 specifies as the discipline of the militia.

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Revolu...r_Drill_Manual
    gtfoxy likes this.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •