Great! With this stance, it should be easy for you can show credible data that states requiring infringement training are safer. Right?
Right?
We'll wait.
Interesting Conversation With A Friend Re: Permitless Carry
- Thread starter Smoke
- Start date
Great! With this stance, it should be easy for you can show credible data that states requiring infringement training are safer. Right?
Right?
We'll wait.
Last edited:
I am going to say this as simply as I can.
If you want to mandate training for exercising a civil liberty, I want you to show me that not mandating training, which is the norm, is causing a real problem.
At present 5 states permit "Constitutional Carry" (no permit required to carry a firearm period.) Several states issue permits with no training requirement at all and several others allow permitless open carry (Again no training requirement).
According to the CDC accidental firearms deaths are at an all time low while firearms ownership is at historic highs.
There are already a whole bunch of people out there carrying guns with no mandated training at all where are all the firearms related accidents
If you want to mandate training for exercising a civil liberty, I want you to show me that not mandating training, which is the norm, is causing a real problem.
At present 5 states permit "Constitutional Carry" (no permit required to carry a firearm period.) Several states issue permits with no training requirement at all and several others allow permitless open carry (Again no training requirement).
According to the CDC accidental firearms deaths are at an all time low while firearms ownership is at historic highs.
There are already a whole bunch of people out there carrying guns with no mandated training at all where are all the firearms related accidents
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
We have mandatory training here in Tenn, classroom and range. Everyone passes, idiots and all. Understand this... Idiot walks in, the same idiot walks out. There is no magical transformation into a thoughtful intelligent person with good judgement.
The value of mandatory training is WAY overrated. Afterwards, most people will not practice much if any at all. Whatever cursory shooting tips they were shown will soon be lost. They will learn not to take a gun into a government building or on school grounds, but any use of force information that might have slipped into their skull will soon be a cloudy memory of zero use during high stress.
Georgia is a border state. They have no mandatory training. They seem to be doing just fine compared to us trained Tennesseans.
The value of mandatory training is WAY overrated. Afterwards, most people will not practice much if any at all. Whatever cursory shooting tips they were shown will soon be lost. They will learn not to take a gun into a government building or on school grounds, but any use of force information that might have slipped into their skull will soon be a cloudy memory of zero use during high stress.
Georgia is a border state. They have no mandatory training. They seem to be doing just fine compared to us trained Tennesseans.
Last edited:
Wow!
This attitude is the reason I am adamantly opposed to efforts to establish some kind of "national carry permit, good in all 57 (?) states."
I guarantee you, whatever national scheme that came out of congress would be more onerous than what we have in Georgia.
Don't screw around with our Georgia gun laws if you ain't from here!
I am a firm believer in the Constitutional Concept of Federalism. Let each state handle its own laws on most issues. If your state has bad gun laws, throw the bunch of freedom haters out of office and vote in some good, freedom loving folks. Just don't screw around with our laws here in Georgia.
Same with AL, where I used to live. You'd be surprised by the number of training elites/legends in their own mind think that infringement training is just fine and dandy.
And, as I recall, the TN IT had no use of force information provided that I recall. "A revolver is a handgun with a revolving cylinder....zzzz zzzz zzzz zzzz". Of course, the droning monotonic tone with which the course was taught didn't help at all. Biggest waste of time ever, 2nd only to the UT CCW cert course.
I live in a state that requires NO permit to carry concealed!
Trust me, I don't want to "screw around" with GA's gun laws, nor do I want to screw around with VT's gun laws, because they are great, as is.
What I am saying, and what a few people here have been "doggin" me about, is that, in order to have the right to carry legally in ALL 50 states.....I would be willing to submit to any number of tests/qualifying/fees, etc...
SHOULD we be allowed to carry ANYWHERE with NO permit?
Sure!!
ARE we allowed to carry anywhere without a permit?
NO!
Some people never travel further than the county line....so they are perfectly happy with their own state laws.
I travel to many anti-gun states, and would love to have a legal right to carry, in ALL states.
You don't need any permission, if you want to become a felon.
I never advocated FOR needing permission, but only wish there was a lawful method of carrying in ALL states.
I grew up in the Live Free Or Die state (NH) and currently live in a state that requires NO permits to conceal......
I understand and appreciate the right to carry firearms....but many states DO NOT have freedom to carry.
Care to elaborate?
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Exactly.
Just an exercise in feel-good governent mandates.
Reality is, average Joe defends himself and usually works out ok. It's the criminal crack-heads running around causing mayhem with guns, not law abiding citizens lacking government mandated training.
Mandatory training in NY is, you go to a range with an "instructor", live fire 10 rds or so and not kill anyone, or don't shoot a hole thru the roof or yourself in the foot, and that suffices for "mandatory training".
Goober in, goober out.
Last edited:
A "constitutional carry" bill was introduced in WV recently. Time will tell if it actually goes anywhere. As a LEO, I only have one issue with the bill. We have no easy way to confirm in the field if someone can legally possess a firearm. For example, during a typical encounter, we check NCIC and for state/ local warrants. All this tells us is that yes, the person has an active warrant or not. To determine criminal histories and an individual's status as a convicted felon we must run a "triple I". (Interstate Identification Index) This however, is pretty controlled and requires a report documenting our reason for the request. It's not a workable way to establish one's status during s field contact.
If there are any officers from states with constitutional carry on this forum, I'd like to hear how they handle things.
Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
If there are any officers from states with constitutional carry on this forum, I'd like to hear how they handle things.
Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
Richard Simmons
Member
I guess that's the rub. No one should have to prove that they can legally carry a firearm. I mean in an open carry state like VA seeing me with a handgun on my hip is not cause to approach me and see if I'm a convicted felon, at least not as I understand the law. We don't pull over a car that is driving legally just to see if the driver has a DL.
Open carry is probably the easier as I doubt a prohibited person would open carry due to the unwarranted attention is seems to draw in most places.
Exactly and in those circumstances, I agree. My above post didn't convey my concerns very well. A routine traffic stop isn't much of a worry overall. I'm thinking more along the lines of when you discover a weapon while investigating some form of nefarious or suspect nefarious activity.
I haven't been able to read the text of the bill introduced and have several questions about it. For example, does CCW become a crime if you are carrying a weapon during the course of a crime?
I'm definitely not anti-permitless carry. I'm just curious about how it will effect the way I do my job. I would like to read the laws and speak with officers in other states with permitless carry to see how things work.
Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
That's about as clear and succinct a message about the 2A as I have read in a while. Could not agree more.
Requiring permits just smacks of greedy government looking for more ways to infringe rights through financial constraints while filling their own coffers. It just steams me that I have to shell out money to legally do something that I have already been legally empowered to do by the constitution. And if I don't, I become a criminal, not because I am a threat to society, but because I am not obeying a practically useless, freedom-infringing law that stands in opposition to our constitution.
I moved down here to anyone-can-carry AZ after I retired from police work in CO. One of the first things I noticed was there don't really seem to be that many carrying openly. I doubt I see one or two a day. I think I'm still pretty good at seeing concealed guns, but I don't see that many either (and people aren't all covered up in parkas down this way.) For the size of city we have (metro Phoenix is the 6th largest in the country, IIRC) there really aren't an overabundance of shootings. I don't know if there was much hand-wringing over constitutional carry down here before, but there sure isn't any sort of "bloodbath" or whatever the antis call it, either.
Bill Bates
Member
There is a very old saying, "the pen is mightier than the sword." Words can and do cause real damage. They do change the world. Words have been used to cause death and destruction. To keep others and children safe we the government will now require instruction, testing and a background check for you to write with a pen name. What a crazy idea!
Who here would ever support a government permitting law that required instruction, testing and a background check before you could use an alias, pen name, handle before exercising your First Amendment right to free speech? Other than the Communists, anarchists, fascists few; a permitting requirement would be equally condemned by all.
I find the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is very clear, "shall not be infringed".
Those that argue that the First Amendment does have limitations and therefore the Second can also have limitations have a very flawed argument. The the limits of speech are limits that cause harm, such as: you can't yell fire in theater, you can libel and slander. These are things that cause harm to others recklessly. The Second amendment already has those same types of restrictions: you can't shoot up your neighbors property, you can't shoot wildly into a crowd, you can't shoot others without real cause.
The First Amendment is never limited as to who can exercise that right. You can type or say as many words as you want and you don't have to attend a class and AT LEAST AT THIS POINT NEED a permit and permission from the government to exercise that right. Those that use safety of others as a reason to infringe your Second Amendment rights may use the same types of logic to restrict other rights. So, I worry about our brother and sister firearm owners that are willing to give up part of their inalienable right for some sort of perceived increase in safety.
The same type of logic could be used to limit your Fourth amendment rights. To protect others we the government need to search your property, computers, etc,. before issuing you permit to obtain a safety deposit box to secure your papers.
Okay that was my ramble for the day...carry on.
Who here would ever support a government permitting law that required instruction, testing and a background check before you could use an alias, pen name, handle before exercising your First Amendment right to free speech? Other than the Communists, anarchists, fascists few; a permitting requirement would be equally condemned by all.
I find the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution is very clear, "shall not be infringed".
Those that argue that the First Amendment does have limitations and therefore the Second can also have limitations have a very flawed argument. The the limits of speech are limits that cause harm, such as: you can't yell fire in theater, you can libel and slander. These are things that cause harm to others recklessly. The Second amendment already has those same types of restrictions: you can't shoot up your neighbors property, you can't shoot wildly into a crowd, you can't shoot others without real cause.
The First Amendment is never limited as to who can exercise that right. You can type or say as many words as you want and you don't have to attend a class and AT LEAST AT THIS POINT NEED a permit and permission from the government to exercise that right. Those that use safety of others as a reason to infringe your Second Amendment rights may use the same types of logic to restrict other rights. So, I worry about our brother and sister firearm owners that are willing to give up part of their inalienable right for some sort of perceived increase in safety.
The same type of logic could be used to limit your Fourth amendment rights. To protect others we the government need to search your property, computers, etc,. before issuing you permit to obtain a safety deposit box to secure your papers.
Okay that was my ramble for the day...carry on.
ChattanoogaPhil
Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2009
- Messages
- 14,601
- Reaction score
- 20,622
Mandatory training in NY is, you go to a range with an "instructor", live fire 10 rds or so and not kill anyone, or don't shoot a hole thru the roof or yourself in the foot, and that suffices for "mandatory training".
Goober in, goober out.
10rds?
If nothing else, at least they get practice dropping the mag and reloading.
