Concealed Carry

[cmort666]

leos are (almost always) not lawyers and generally may not know the current or exact meanings/intent of ALL laws and prior precedents.

Irrelevant.

They have a legal DUTY to, just like anyone else.

He's just as liable for actions or inactions based on ignorance of the law as you are.

Actions have consequences. Know the law, regardless of who you are.

giving lip to a leo, during an initial encounter, even if you are correct is not a wise move. likely just gonna go from bad to worse imo. the time and place would be when in front of a judge or possibly a calmer more educated superior officer. unless you enjoy a good taze/pepper spray or baton session.

Define "lip". Does that mean invoking your right to remain silent and to refuse consent to unlawful searches? If he wants to feloniously assault me for that, I can't stop him. There will however be consequences.

Remember, if you consent, you have NO complaint. Coerced compliance under [recorded] protest is NOT consent.

 

[cmort666]

I am not denigrating the NRA

You've done nothing BUT "denigrate" the NRA.

Quite obviously, the reason is that they oppose the sort of draconian restrictions which you prefer.

 

[cmort666]

My friend--don't tell me that because I disagree with things that the NRA does--that I do not believe in freedom---I earned my freedom in combat---real combat where I actually was under fire.

You DON'T believe in freedom. You believe in CONTROL, GOVERNMENT control.

Gun control is NEVER about guns, ALWAYS about CONTROL, almost invariably of those somebody wants to get rid of, or at least grind into the dirt. That's history.

 

[cmort666]

where Americans seen more than ever --seem not able to compromise

I'm sure David Duke would like me to "compromise" on the 13th Amendment.

What degree of chattel slavery should I find acceptable? If I say "none" am I an "extremist"?

I'm sure Bob Avakian would like me to "compromise" on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

What degree of Maoist dictatorship should I find acceptable? If I say "none" am I an "extremist"?

 

[Roy Odhner]

Driving is a privilege. The right to bare arms is, obviously, a right.

I agree 100% that people should train with their firearms before carrying, but it shouldn't be mandated that you pay for a class. You shouldn't need to PAY over $200 for a right.

I understand your point, but I don't agree. There is no such thing as a free right, because one way or another they are paid for. Your right to bear arms is also an obligation to prove that you know how to handle that weapon.

Half of that $200 goes to the basic firearms class that you need for the CHL. The other half goes for the licensing procedure. If you're ignorant about firearms, then you have no business carrying one. The State cannot magically determine who is ignorant and who is not, nor can it legally grant such a random determination. It needs solid proof. So, if you want the CHL, you're going to have to prove that you have at least a basic understanding and proficiency with that weapon. The only process that is going to ensure this is a training course.

Rights are not free, and one way or another they are paid for. Your rights under the 2nd end where the personal safety of others begins, and most people want some basic certification as proof that you know how to handle that weapon. How proficient you are on your own property is your business, so you can be uncertified all you want there. However, once you carry that weapon into a public place your proficiency becomes everybody else's business.

We want some basic proof that you know how to handle that weapon. If you shoot in self-defense and in the process miss your target and kill, wound, or maim an innocent third party do you really think you should be exempt from prosecution or litigation? That basic classroom portion of the CHL is going to be your first line of defense. The 2nd clearly incorporates a statement about a militia, and training is an inherent part of any association with any militia. What proof can you provide that you have received training, and who is required to foot the bill for that training? Seems to me that a $200 CHL is a small price pay for that proof.

 

[redlevel]

We want some basic proof that you know how to handle that weapon.

Who is "we"?
Do you comprehend the degree of arrogance contained in that statement?

Another one.

 

[Bamabred]

There are no requirements in my state. Fill out a form and pay $7.50.

 

[Roy Odhner]

Who is "we"?
Do you comprehend the degree of arrogance contained in that statement?

Another one.

"We" is a great portion of the American public, gun owners and non-gun owners. Do you comprehend the degree of ignorance of, or indifference toward, your fellow citizens contained in your statement? They/we have a right to be safe too, and the village idiot who goes totting a firearm with no training what-so-ever, poses a huge risk to the public.

Do you really think most Americans, gun owning or not, like the idea of untrained people totting firearms? It's bad enough that the thugs are untrained. "We" sure don't want any more unqualified idiots out there packing.

The Military expects it's personnel to be properly trained. Law Enforcement expects it's personnel to be properly trained. The Courts and Correctional professions expect their personnel to be properly trained. Firefighters and Paramedics who carry in the course of their duty are expected to be properly trained. And not only do these professions (and the greater American public) expect their personnel to be properly trained with firearms, they expect that they can provide documentation to prove it.

Why should civilians be any different? Or are you such a swell guy that I should just take your word for it?

 

[Bamabred]

If you shoot in self-defense and in the process miss your target and kill, wound, or maim an innocent third party do you really think you should be exempt from prosecution or litigation?

Does this go for law enforcement as well? Because there are studies that show that they only hit their intended target 30%of the time.

 

[cmort666]

Law Enforcement expects it's personnel to be properly trained.

Really?

Have you asked Emma Hernandez and the tax payers of Los Angeles County about that?

 

[ladder13]

"We" is a great portion of the American public, gun owners and non-gun owners.........

Do you really think most Americans, gun owning or not, like the idea of untrained people totting firearms?

Good thing America is not governed by mob rule, ain't it?

 

[redlevel]

"We" is a great portion of the American public, gun owners and non-gun owners.

90%, do you figure?

 

[Roy Odhner]

Does this go for law enforcement as well? Because there are studies that show that they only hit their intended target 30%of the time.

And they also face criminal and civil lawsuits if non-combatants are hit by their fire, and they also face internal departmental sanction. Do juries and administrations hold them accountable and sanction them accordingly? Sometimes. Should they be excused when they inadvertently hit non-combatants? Depends on the totality of the situation, I suppose. Will civilians ever be given the same consideration as police officers under such a circumstance? Probably not.

 

[ladder13]

I will openly admit that I do not agree with the extreme interpretation of right to bear arms by either the left or the right. The right just seems to me to be the more vocal of the two---and just like in this thread almost always make the association that any regulation or enforcement of standards is a conspiracy to take away 2d amendment protections. Even the conservative justices, such as Scalia, on the supreme court acknowledge that regulations that may restrict 2d amendment right to bear arms are constitutional. those who argue that the word "shall" in the 2d amendment precludes any regulation are wrong---the word shallnot is also used in the first amendment and there are numerous laws regulating speech, assembly and even practice of religion.
My motive is not to take away gun rights---hell I own 25 firearms and shoot them frequently-----it is to get those who are absolutists regards the 2d amendment to understand that without some moderation and acceptance of reasonable regulation--there is ever growing a real possibility that the result of this debate will actually destroy the 2d amendment protections.

When are these "reasonable regulations" going to end? Seems like one "reasonable" gun law is proposed every week. When will you folk be happy with your "reasonable regulations"?

 

[Roy Odhner]

90%, do you figure?

75 percent, I'd say. Can I back up my stats any more than you could back up any of your stats that might counter mine? Probably not. However, I don't limit myself to the opinions of others on forums dedicated exclusively to fire arms and I deal with people from very diverse backgrounds and political affiliations in my day to day business dealings. My 75 percent figure comes from talking to lots of people.

I bet if you created a poll, posted it here on the S&W forum, and assured respondents that they would not be subjected to bombastic verbal assaults or banishment for expressing their opinion, then you'd find that at least 50 percent of respondents agreed that mandatory basic firearms safety classes were a good thing when it came to issuing a CHL. (How will I back my bet? If I loose I'll figure out a way to post a picture of myself in a baby bonnet and sucking on a binky).

 

[Roy Odhner]

Good thing America is not governed by mob rule, ain't it?

Depends on which mob you're talking about, I suppose.

 

[ladder13]

I am not denigrating the NRA-.....

Of course not. But you did say:

"Why is it that the vast majority of firearm owners are not NRA members
The answer-----because the NRA has morphed into a minority of mindless radicals who are shills for the firearms manufacturers and spew mindless bile and garbage. Glad that Bloomberg is putting up lotsa bucks to challenge them."

 

[Roy Odhner]

Really?

Have you asked Emma Hernandez and the tax payers of Los Angeles County about that?

Trying to make a rule out of an exception? Are you saying that the majority of law enforcement agencies are staffed by incompetent and untrained officers, and administered by idiots?

 

[MrJT]

I understand your point, but I don't agree. There is no such thing as a free right, because one way or another they are paid for.

.......


Rights are not free

Wrong, wrong, WRONG!

Where in the bill of rights does it say you have the right to bare arms if you pay $X? Freedom of speech only if you pay for a freedom of speech license?

These are God given rights, not rights as long as you can afford to pay.

And it does not apply only to militias.

 

[Aticus]

Florida has issued about 1.2 million concealed carry permits.
With the perceived lack of training expressed by you and the OPoster,
one would expect that the streets and gutters of The Gunshine State would be
running red with the blood of octogenarians who,because of their lack of training,
are killing themselves and innocent bystanders in wholesale lots.

Is this the case?

I'm not saying the lack of training is making the streets of Florida run red with blood. I know better. What I'm saying is there is a lack of training. I also feel that my home state training is lacking and our streets are not running red either. I don't know what the answer is but I do know that no training is not it. BTW my military firearms training was qualifying twice in 4 years with an M1 Carbine on a 100 yd. KD range.

I answered the above quoted post before I read the rest of the thread so I want to add this edit. After reading the thread I begin to wonder about Bengal07's reason for the OP. Was it to express a view to begin a frank discussion or some other reason. Bengal you had to know the reaction you would get with that and subsequent posts. What was the reason? Was this just to stir up a controversy? Was it the post about what you have been through to show us what we lack/ I'm a year older than you and I'm sure there are plenty of members in this thread who are our age. We have seen all that you mention (except the combat perhaps) and all of that has molded our lives and our thinking. Your post was bound to stir up a hornets nest and I hope that was not your intention.