Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I consider myself fairly politically aware, and especially so these last 4 months. Here recently, I have been pestering my state and federal politicians in order to remind them that I support the 2nd and they had better do so too if they wish to keep their job. Now is not the time to slack off and hope it all works out.

Yet just today I heard about the proposed SC Senate Bill 115 or "The Constitutional Carry Act of 2013". There was a special public comment session in my local community tonight to discuss the bill with the Senators who are charged with reviewing and amending it. Unfortunately with such short notice, I was not able to go and check this session out, but I found news reports from other sessions around the state and the turnouts in support of the law seem to have been huge. The bill seeks to remove all restrictions on carry of weapons within the state (for residents), and change the code of laws to make "possession of a weapons with criminal intent" an illegal act, rather than just possession of a weapon (without a CWP). It would remove the entire CWP permit process. No licence needed, ever. So I guess SC would then become an open carry state as well, which we currently are not. SOUNDS GREAT RIGHT!? I mean I am all for removing any barrier to the 2nd.

HOWEVER, in my searching I came across a commentary by a LGS owner who stated that he was obviously pro 2nd amendment, but that he did not support the bill. His argument was that training and minimal certification is paramount before wearing a gun out in the open or concealed. He said that he sees so many first time buyers who are clueless idiots, and that he worries what they will be like when they can just wear that new 1911 on their hip out of the store. I work in retail and I would concur that at least 50% of the people I come into contact with each day are abject morons who I would tremble at the thought of arming without training. With no manditory training, few poeple will be educated on the when and how they should (or should not) use their firearm. He further pointed out that the Police will now have a much harder time verifying if someone is carrying a weapon lawfully. Currently if a thug is printing, the officer can make inquires to see of that person can legally carry that firearm, but if this bill was enacted they would no longer have any ability to see if the person might perhaps be a felon. Unintended consequences. Do they sink this proposed legislation? It might be a long way off from becoming law, but it probably has never had a better chance than right now of passing in our state. I am just not sure if I should push for it, or seek better legislation such as expanded CWP rights? Sound off, please!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,699 Posts
The right of the people...shall not be infringed. This applies to so-called "morons" as well as you and me. When a fundamental right is subject to licensure in the name of safety then, to paraphrase Franklin, we deserve neither the right nor safety!

I trust the people. Good riddance to SC's system of licensing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,761 Posts
^ What he said.........
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,182 Posts
Gee... shot a gun for years without "official training" ... how did I ever live and not kill someone. My grandfather taught me how to shoot, to be safe, etc. The PROBLEM with training is..... ya'alls generation didin't learn and / or aren't teaching your kids to handle guns and be safe with them. So now.... oh gee, we got to find some certified guy to teach us. Grandfathers, fathers, and mothers..... need to get back to teaching their kids, and quit all relying on some "class" somewhere, as if that is somehow magical. And I'm talking basic how to handle a gun, how to shoot a gun, and how to be safe with a gun.

In the meantime, get the dads and the mothers trained, if they don't know. But.... I would have a real issue with the guy at the LGS .... because he's trying to get the state to make it mandatory so that he can make money off of it. If he has good training, he should be promoting it and telling everyone he sells a gun to about it ... and if he has decent prices.... they'll more than likely attend and go to it. But, if it's mandatory, he can charge twice as much and then say "well , you have to have it".

OK ... so lets make all of you guys go to the Police Academy.... and how many Police officers have ND"s ? Well, then that must not be good enough either. Let's put everyone thru the miltary and then we know everyone's trained.

Where do you start and where do you stop ? What makes anyone think "their training " is the do all be all of all the training out there ? And training for ?????? .... basic firearm safety ? self-defense ? laws of the state ? .... gee, you could earn a degree before you get done. Maybe we should give PELL grants and offer financing for it .

I don't have a thing against training of any kind, and think any training anyone gets ... as long as it's not from a moron .... is good. But .. do you really want that put into the laws, because some gun shop owner wants to MAKE you take it from him.

>>> sarcasim off <<<<

I'll give you an example. Something if you look it up you'll find it true,.... but your VET won't likley tell you. Get a 2 shot rabies sequence for your puppy, and 7 yrs later, he'll still test good for his antibodies for rabies. Drug companies quit testing after 3 & 4 yrs, because it's expensive to keep up their study , they don't want to do that.... they want you to buy their product anyway.. more often. Then we get to the VETS themselves.... who keep teling the Cities, etc..... a dog needs rabies shot EVERY YEAR .... you know why ? ..... because they want you to come in and get a shot, pay them for an exam, and any other tests and shots they can throw in every year. But, is ONLY ONE vaccine out there for rabies that is only good for 1 yr..... they are ALL 3-4 yrs . But the Vets don't want to lose the money.

Are all those yearly shots good for a dog ? NOPE.... would you give your kid 6-7 vaccines every year ? You are your dog, since some are 2-4 combined vaccines in one shot. The result, lower life spans, and all the ailments, etc. increasing in dogs that are a result of over-vaccination. Studies being done since about 1990 have been showing.... ya'all are literally killing off your dogs and shortening their lives with over- vaccinations they don't need, as the vaccines are effective way beyond what they'll tell you they are.

So.... if 1 training course is good..... 10 must be even better. Wow... let's just make it 1000 hours of training. I wouldn't give the anti-gun folks one "inch" ... of something they can use to restrict and prohibit gun ownership. Do gang bangers go thru training ? We need to put that in the laws too. Yep, that's the ticket.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,955 Posts
Any gun reg you can rid yourself of do so and thank your lucky stars. Police have no business randomly checking printing carriers with no probably cause. They cannot do it in ky and we are not the wild west everyone fears.

Mandatory training or anything else is infringement of 2A. Push it support it learn it live it and love it if you can get that done in your state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,071 Posts
Most of the mandatory training is simply the anatomy of a firearm and basic "keep your finger off the trigger and don't point the muzzle at anything you don't want shot" stuff. I've never seen a class that offered "when you could or should shoot, legal ramifications, justified vs. unjustified, etc." types of stuff. While "training" sounds good, most of the truly valuable information is either found in training that you seek out and pay for yourself or have the inclination to research yourself. Basic concealed carry classes rarely go into that type of depth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,476 Posts
The only problem I see would be with reciprocity. If you don't have a permit from you state there may be problems there. I believe that is the reason Vermont residents can't carry in FL. No permit, no reciprocity. Not saying I agree with this just that that's the way it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,008 Posts
The permit system will stay in place as an option. It will not be required for carry in state. I do not see more states accepting our permit as a result of this. So rights for SC citizens out of state should not change for the better or worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Since Vermont was mentioned, it would seem that all the problems with not requiring training in order to carry would be taking place there. Anybody heard of any major problems with police being able to identify criminals or untrained morons not knowing whether to shoot or not? Do these problems take place with any greater frequency in Vermont than they do in states that require training and permits?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
I think your worries are unfonded. In vermont we have never had permits and there has never been a problem. As near as anyone can tell 70% of all homes here have a firearm and its the safest state in the country. If any of your legislaters need info on this have them contact me at 802-463-9026. I'm always happy to help on 2nd amendment issues.
Ed Cutler
Legislative Director
Gun Owers of Vermont
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,082 Posts
Eagleks, you actually did have training, and probably excellent training: your grandfather.

I know that when it comes time to teach my grandson, my efforts will be over the top diligent simply because he's my flesh and blood.

I agree with some form of training, I think there are a lot of people that don't have the common sense necessary to just walk into the LGS, pick one of the shelf, load it up and shove it in their pants and go about their business.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,757 Posts
"Pro Second Amendment" is a subjective concept. Biden and Obama assure us they both believe in it. As with duck hunting, muskets, and double-barrel shotguns, the Second Amendment makes no mention of Concealed Handgun Permit courses.
The idea that a two, four, or eight-hour basic program genuinely prepares a "moron" to carry is one to which I do not adhere. I take absolutely no comfort in knowing that a CHL holder has taken a course in which he learned about the four components of a cartridge, the nomenclature of a single-action revolver, and how to shout "I have a gun and I'm calling the police" prior to taking an open-book, fifty-question test.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Since Vermont was mentioned, it would seem that all the problems with not requiring training in order to carry would be taking place there. Anybody heard of any major problems with police being able to identify criminals or untrained morons not knowing whether to shoot or not? Do these problems take place with any greater frequency in Vermont than they do in states that require training and permits?
There are no problems in Vermont. In fact I think were the only state in the union that dosent prohibit fellons from owning firearms. This is a really complicated issue but understand that in Vermont 3rd conviction of driving without a license is a fellony. There are lots more laws like this and the gun rights organization in this state will not accept this kind of law. Lets not forget that the founding fathers of this country and especially my state were traiters and fellons by the laws of the king and parlement
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,841 Posts
Since Vermont was mentioned, it would seem that all the problems with not requiring training in order to carry would be taking place there. Anybody heard of any major problems with police being able to identify criminals or untrained morons not knowing whether to shoot or not? Do these problems take place with any greater frequency in Vermont than they do in states that require training and permits?
Methinks I identify some sarcasm...

Agreed that VT and other states with no training requirement (including my home state of GA) demonstrate that forcing training does not necessarily make for a safer state.

Although I personally recommend training for anyone who is new to our world; I do not believe that the state should require such training.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Methinks I identify some sarcasm...

Agreed that VT and other states with no training requirement (including my home state of GA) demonstrate that forcing training does not necessarily make for a safer state.

Although I personally recommend training for anyone who is new to our world; I do not believe that the state should require such training.
It actually wasn't meant as sarcasm. I know that Vermont is one of the states that don't require permits. I've not heard of any problems there, but I thought a member who lived in the state or in the vicinity might be aware of some problem. Personally, I think training is only common sense but in my state the training required for a permit is a basic familiarity with the gun laws and an ability to at least hit the paper most of the time. There's no requirement for common sense at all.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,841 Posts
It actually wasn't meant as sarcasm. I know that Vermont is one of the states that don't require permits. I've not heard of any problems there, but I thought a member who lived in the state or in the vicinity might be aware of some problem. Personally, I think training is only common sense but in my state the training required for a permit is a basic familiarity with the gun laws and an ability to at least hit the paper most of the time. There's no requirement for common sense at all.
Fair enough, I misread the intent. Either way, my opinion stands. I am not aware of any statistical analysis indicating that states requiring training are any safer than states that don't require training; although I do not claim to be an expert in the matter.

Please do NOT read this as an endorsement for no training - I believe that everyone who intends to carry a gun should get as much training as they can; however i do not believe that such training should be required through regulation.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,227 Posts
OP, I understand your concern about clueless people carrying. However..... any criminal punk can just tuck a gun into his or her waistband in any state and under any set of laws. I've always felt that concealed carry permit laws were unconstitutional in the first place. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say, "Adequate training, as delegated by the State, being necessary for public safety, the right to decide which People can keep and bear arms shall be at the discretion of whichever politicians happen to be in office."

It just doesn't.

Nothing is perfect. I get very offended when I hear an idiot politician talk about "assault" rifles and "weapons that belong on the battlefield." But the 1st Amendment guarantees the right of free speech, regardless of how asinine that speech might be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Isn't a "well-regulated militia" in modern day vernacular, a "well-trained" militia? I see no harm in requiring every person who owns a gun to have some basic training. In Missouri, where I live, everyone must pass a hunter safety course to be permitted to buy a hunting license. I am strongly in favor of each persons to right to keep and bear arms, but why not require everyone over the age of 18 get training to carry a handgun? We that conceal carry already are doing it.

I also understand that 8 hours of training does not make a man a master of his weapon, but basic safety training should be required since many of the people buying guns today have never had a dad/grandfather to train them in its safe use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Fair enough, I misread the intent. Either way, my opinion stands. I am not aware of any statistical analysis indicating that states requiring training are any safer than states that don't require training; although I do not claim to be an expert in the matter.

Please do NOT read this as an endorsement for no training - I believe that everyone who intends to carry a gun should get as much training as they can; however i do not believe that such training should be required through regulation.
I agree with you primarily because politicians writing training requirements can get you somebody like Feinstein or Bloomberg deciding what hoops you need to jump through in order to acquire your permit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
The permit system will stay in place as an option. It will not be required for carry in state. I do not see more states accepting our permit as a result of this. So rights for SC citizens out of state should not change for the better or worse.
Well somebody read the whole nine yards !!!
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top