Well, what does the Constitution say?
Concealed Carry
- Thread starter Bengal07
- Start date
Realzebub45
Member
May I respectfully say I believe you misunderstood my point. That's the problem when you post in a hurry, and don't elaborate (me I mean). We all know there are countless millions spent by both sides of the 2nd amendment debate fighting each other.
What I was getting at was that those millions could be better spent, if they MUST be spent. I'm sure a voluntary program could be put together. Not Rambo training, basic proficiency training. Not mandatory, no Divemaster level certifications, no additional impediments to exercising your constitutional rights, no state mandated hoops. If we can find money for Government studies of shrimp on a treadmill, you think some liberals would be squealing to divert some of those funds to teaching us hillbilly gun owners responsible gun handling.
This argument is coincidentally one of the many used by the left to help in their general argument against firearms ownership. But we know it has nothing to do with proficiency or preventing accidents because of a low level of proficiency, they just do not believe in the 2nd. Period.
charlie sherrill
Member
No reqirements here. Give them your fingerprints and picture and pay the money. Open carry will be legal here July 1.
Well, everyone else here is exposing his opinion, so I reckon I'll do so as well. We all know that there are some knowledge factors and habits that are necessary to safe gunhandling. Most of us recognize the Second Amendment, and quite a few of us recognize that some government bodies use what they call reasonable regulation to diminish or annul Second Amendment rights. It looks like there are some competing aims here (safety versus rights), but I am not so sure that that is the case.
Allow me to give a couple of examples, myself and my father. My father was a perfect example of a more or less responsible citizen who could be perfectly trusted without any gun laws whatsoever, and no training, either. He didn't like guns, I don't think, and he didn't own one. Don't need much training for that, or laws, either. Responsible folks don't play with guns or dynamite until they learn something about it.
I'm the other example. I like guns, I learned something about them before I started messing around with them, even taught a few other folks how to handle them safely. But dynamite? No way. I know it's pretty safe stuff (unless it's leaking, I think), but I have no need for it, I've never handled any, and I don't need any laws or permits to keep me away from it until I've learned proper use and handling.
This is how most sane folks act. If someone has a nut case or a mental defective in the family, the family needs to make provision for that, quite independent of any gun laws or gasoline laws or pressure-cooker laws or what have you.
If someone feels more training is needed than most folks are getting, it should probably be addressed on a case-by-case basis. But if you want to really be sure, how about truckemup97's suggestion?
Allow me to give a couple of examples, myself and my father. My father was a perfect example of a more or less responsible citizen who could be perfectly trusted without any gun laws whatsoever, and no training, either. He didn't like guns, I don't think, and he didn't own one. Don't need much training for that, or laws, either. Responsible folks don't play with guns or dynamite until they learn something about it.
I'm the other example. I like guns, I learned something about them before I started messing around with them, even taught a few other folks how to handle them safely. But dynamite? No way. I know it's pretty safe stuff (unless it's leaking, I think), but I have no need for it, I've never handled any, and I don't need any laws or permits to keep me away from it until I've learned proper use and handling.
This is how most sane folks act. If someone has a nut case or a mental defective in the family, the family needs to make provision for that, quite independent of any gun laws or gasoline laws or pressure-cooker laws or what have you.
If someone feels more training is needed than most folks are getting, it should probably be addressed on a case-by-case basis. But if you want to really be sure, how about truckemup97's suggestion?
Poodle Soup
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2012
- Messages
- 592
- Reaction score
- 292
I bet more than 50% of the people who are getting a permit dont carry for more than a week or two. Training should be required... but easily accessible
Wow, some of you should move here to NY if you like regulation so much.
Roadtrash
US Veteran
Well I got mine here in AZ before they stopped requiring them and I keep it because it comes in handy when buying another gun. Background check goes through really fast.
My instructor was very thorough in discussing the law, how to carry, how to react when a problem arises, safety, we had a dummy gun in the class room part and used the dummy there, and then when we went to the range we had to prove we knew how to use the firearm from loading to firing to unloading, etc.
All in all we had a very good class in which every person had to participate in the discussions and the practible parts of the class. You didn't want to join in the discussion you weren't going to pass.
For a few extra dollars the instructor took our fingerprints, etc. and filed our paper work for us and a few weeks later we got our permits.
I believe that if you required too much training, like the military or police, you wouldn't see very many people carrying. It would be too expensive and time consuming for most to do it. Not to mention the fact that I don't think we need that kind of training to protect ourselves and our families.
I think our training was very good.
Just my 2 cents.
My instructor was very thorough in discussing the law, how to carry, how to react when a problem arises, safety, we had a dummy gun in the class room part and used the dummy there, and then when we went to the range we had to prove we knew how to use the firearm from loading to firing to unloading, etc.
All in all we had a very good class in which every person had to participate in the discussions and the practible parts of the class. You didn't want to join in the discussion you weren't going to pass.
For a few extra dollars the instructor took our fingerprints, etc. and filed our paper work for us and a few weeks later we got our permits.
I believe that if you required too much training, like the military or police, you wouldn't see very many people carrying. It would be too expensive and time consuming for most to do it. Not to mention the fact that I don't think we need that kind of training to protect ourselves and our families.
I think our training was very good.
Just my 2 cents.
Bengal07 you have no need to carry a gun to prove your manhood. You do not believe that the right to bear arms is intended to preserve individual freedom.
Why do you ask this question?
Are you looking for validation of some premise? Perhaps that there are those of us who are "supporting the radical interpretation of the right to bear arms" yet seeing if we may agree with what I think is your hidden question - namely that proof of ability to handle a firearm should be required before permits to own one are issued.
May I remind you of your comments from a previous thread posted by you on 4/30/13 at 1:35 PM...
"...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. I own at least two dozen guns and enjoy recreational shooting. I don't hunt because it is not a necessity for me---I can get my food at a super market-----I have a CCW but I do not carry a concealed weapon except when I might take a hike into the woods--then only to protect myself from animals that pose a danger------I consider myself an excellent shot with either rifle or pistol but I don't need to carry a gun to prove my manhood.
I am certain that unless gun owners stop supporting the radical interpretation of right to bear arms---the public will eventually get fed up with them and enact sweeping changes that no one will like. Don't give me the slippery slope arguments--they are pure BS----you can't prove to me that a civilian needs a weapon capable of firing hundreds of rounds in just a few minutes----if you tell me that weapon helps preserve individual freedom--my reply is that most individuals that own military type high firerate weapons would **** in their pants before they got a round off, if the "black helicopters" that they dream about actually came after them."
You made your feelings about the second amendment known in no uncertain terms. I for one, did not forget your tirade.
Why do you ask this question?
Are you looking for validation of some premise? Perhaps that there are those of us who are "supporting the radical interpretation of the right to bear arms" yet seeing if we may agree with what I think is your hidden question - namely that proof of ability to handle a firearm should be required before permits to own one are issued.
May I remind you of your comments from a previous thread posted by you on 4/30/13 at 1:35 PM...
"...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. I own at least two dozen guns and enjoy recreational shooting. I don't hunt because it is not a necessity for me---I can get my food at a super market-----I have a CCW but I do not carry a concealed weapon except when I might take a hike into the woods--then only to protect myself from animals that pose a danger------I consider myself an excellent shot with either rifle or pistol but I don't need to carry a gun to prove my manhood.
I am certain that unless gun owners stop supporting the radical interpretation of right to bear arms---the public will eventually get fed up with them and enact sweeping changes that no one will like. Don't give me the slippery slope arguments--they are pure BS----you can't prove to me that a civilian needs a weapon capable of firing hundreds of rounds in just a few minutes----if you tell me that weapon helps preserve individual freedom--my reply is that most individuals that own military type high firerate weapons would **** in their pants before they got a round off, if the "black helicopters" that they dream about actually came after them."
You made your feelings about the second amendment known in no uncertain terms. I for one, did not forget your tirade.
TheGreatGonzo
US Veteran
Nicely stated and thanks for putting the OP's question into perspective.
It seems pretty clear, based on his earlier post, that for Bengal07, "adult supervision" equals "government supervision".
TheGreatGonzo
US Veteran
My home state and current state of residence do not require any training or demonstration of proficiency for a standard permit. An "enhanced permit" is offered that allows the holder to carry in some places that a standard permit does not and and it requires an 8-hour class by a state certified instructor.
To be honest, I wrestle back and forth in my mind with the "training/proficiency required" vs. "no training/proficiency required". However, at the end of day, I always come to the inner conclusion that, in keeping with what I believe the intent of the Constitution is, no training should be required. I have always been a supporter of the concept of "Constitutional Carry", such as exists in Vermont and Alaska(where no license is required at all), and this clearly does not allow for any training requirements.
If the government is concerned about the "public safety" (the OP's words) because of untrained or undertrained citizens with firearms, they should offer a voluntary firearms training program, free of charge, to any citizen who chooses to take it. In addition to teaching basic firearms safety and handling, a law enforcement instructor could also spend some time teaching about shooting judgement and state laws as they apply to firearms.
Gonzo
To be honest, I wrestle back and forth in my mind with the "training/proficiency required" vs. "no training/proficiency required". However, at the end of day, I always come to the inner conclusion that, in keeping with what I believe the intent of the Constitution is, no training should be required. I have always been a supporter of the concept of "Constitutional Carry", such as exists in Vermont and Alaska(where no license is required at all), and this clearly does not allow for any training requirements.
If the government is concerned about the "public safety" (the OP's words) because of untrained or undertrained citizens with firearms, they should offer a voluntary firearms training program, free of charge, to any citizen who chooses to take it. In addition to teaching basic firearms safety and handling, a law enforcement instructor could also spend some time teaching about shooting judgement and state laws as they apply to firearms.
Gonzo
cmort666
Member
The rules in Ohio should be changed to require the class to be about nothing BUT Ohio firearms and self-defense law.
I've NEVER heard of somebody with an Ohio CHL getting in trouble because they didn't know their gun. I've seen a LOT of instances of people getting in trouble because they didn't know the LAW, and as frequently or more so, because POLICE didn't know (or care about) the law.
Ohio firearms and self-defense law is often capricious and irrational. Until recently, it was legal for somebody with a CHL to walk around all day with a handgun in their pocket, but the SECOND they got into a car, they were a CRIMINAL because the gun wasn't in a HOLSTER (including a pocket holster). What SANE person would EVER think that should be codified in law?
I've also personally seen cops here try to make up and enforce nonexistent "laws" about carry (and NON-carry). The gun owner and carrier had BETTER know relevant law, because he ABSOLUTELY cannot count on the police to.
Twelve hours of firearms and self-defense law would be of FAR more benefit to most people with CHLs than fifty hours of firearms instruction.
Knowledge of the law is every bit as necessary as knowledge of how to shoot.
Last edited:
Black_Sheep
Member
The classroom training focused mainly on the legal aspects of carrying and being involved in a shooting. The shooting proficiency test was not at all difficult for anyone with minimal experiance. The total time for the course was a little over 3 hours. I honestly don't think it was adequate training for a novice or anyone lacking basic common sense...
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
In Kentucky it's legal to have a loaded weapon in the glove box or trunk of your vehicle without a license so long as it doesn't leave the ride except going to and from one's home. For some strange reason, if you have a concealed carry license, as I understand it the same gun is supposed to be in plain sight in the vehicle. I still don't understand that.
The restrictions for vehicle carry WITHOUT a permit are shown below. There is no requirement that the firearm be in plain sight if you have a permit.
RV/Car Carry Without A Permit/License
527.020 Carrying Concealed Deadly Weapon.
(8) A loaded or unloaded firearm or other deadly weapon shall not be deemed concealed on or about the person if it is located in any enclosed container, compartment, or storage space [regularly] installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle by its manufacturer, including but not limited to a glove compartment, center console, or seat pocket, regardless of whether said enclosed container, storage space, or compartment is locked, unlocked, or does not have a locking mechanism. No person or organization, public or private, shall prohibit a person from keeping a loaded or unloaded firearm or ammunition, or both, or other deadly weapon in a vehicle in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. Any attempt by a person or organization, public or private, to violate the provisions of this subsection may be the subject of an action for appropriate relief or for damages in a Circuit Court or District Court of competent jurisdiction. This subsection shall not apply to any person prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to KRS 527.040.
The full text of Kentucky Concealed Carry Law is here:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/kentucky.pdf
gregintenn
Member
This!If we required classes in safe firearm handling in elementary school, and marksmanship in middle and high school, no further training would be needed.
Since we seem to have continually fewer and fewer men who are willing to step up and be fathers, instead of just sperm doners, I guess mandatory classes in school would beat nothing. Were this to happen, I expect you'd see a vast drop in accidental shootings, and in crime in general.
cmort666
Member
Yes, but then far fewer people would be easily manipulated victims. Where would we be then...?
My Position
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.
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.
I have seen few, if any, 2nd Amendment "absolutists" on this board. I, like most here, believe in "reasonable" restrictions. However, I also believe that the point of "reasonableness" has already been approached and passed.
If you want to say that universal background checks and universal registration are "reasonable," then you need not expect to find much agreement here.
cmort666
Member
By "extreme", you appear to mean belief (in line with SCOTUS decision) that it's an individual right.
Which it ALWAYS is.
I'm an absolutist on slavery as well. What part of the 13th Amendment should I be willing to "compromise"?
cmort666
Member
Virtually EVERY politician I've seen pushing for "reasonable" regulation of firearms is the equivalent of the Taliban pushing for "reasonable" imposition of a mandatory state religious sect and "reasonable" restriction of women to their homes unless escorted by a male relative.
Gun control is NEVER about guns, ALWAYS about malice and the desire to CONTROL the disfavored and despised. It always has been and always will be.
Similar threads
- Locked
