What should be required to get CHP?

[Filbird]

I've been thinking about this question for a while.

In Virginia, all you need to do to get your CHP is take a day-long firearms safety course and send in your CHP application. As long as you have no legal skeletons in your closet, in a short period of time you get your permit in the mail, and off you go.

Is that really enough? In other states, I believe you have to prove proficiency. I suppose that is analogous to taking a driver's test in order to get your driver's license.

We can certainly argue whether it's appropriate to have ANY sort of license or process to conceal a firearm in the light of the 2nd amendment; however, the founding fathers would not have known what to make of the model 442 .38 currently in a DeSantis holster in my pocket.

I have heard some argue that we need a nationwide license to conceal a firearm, rather than having constantly to figure out reciprocity agreements from state to state, etc. To get this nationwide CHP, should we accept, perhaps even recommend, a higher-level proof of safety and ability with that firearm?

 

[DeadManWalking]

The Second Amendment spells it out loud and clear when it say "the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed." Read it anyway you want but Concealed Carry Permits are an infringement on OUR Rights. It doesn't say in some states but not others, it doesn't say you can't cross state lines, it doesn't say only 10 rounds in the magazine, or a caliber of less than .50, it says "the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed." All this bull **** is unconstitutional.

 

[nogods]

In New York State you only need a 3-hour firearm safety course for a handgun permit, followed by a background check. Some counties get it done in a month or two. others take 18 months. Some Counties impose license restrictions, some don't.

You don't need anything for a long gun. Just walk in and buy it (subject, of course to the federal check). But if you want to hunt with that long gun (or for that matter, hunt with your handgun), then you have to take a 12-safety course.

 

[nogods]

The Second Amendment spells it out loud and clear when it say "the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed." Read it anyway you want but Concealed Carry Permits are an infringement on OUR Rights. It doesn't say in some states but not others, it doesn't say you can't cross state lines, it doesn't say only 10 rounds in the magazine, or a caliber of less than .50, it says "the Right of the PEOPLE to keep and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed." All this bull **** is unconstitutional.

The "right to bear arms" needs to be defined before we can determine whether or not it has been infringed.

None of the rights under our Constitution is absolute - they all are abstract concepts that need concrete definitions to be applied in the real world.

For example, existing jurisprudence holds that the "right to bear arms" does not include the right to carry a weapon in a federal courthouse. Thus, prohibiting one from possessing a weapon while in a federal courthouse is not an infringement of the "right to bear arms."

We can have discourse on what the definition of the "right to bear arms" should and should not include, but asserting that it is a metaphysical absolute right to possess any weapon at any time in any place by anyone won't get taken very seriously in our political or judicial system.

 

[cp1969]

The "right to bear arms" needs to be defined before we can determine whether or not it has been infringed.

None of the rights under our Constitution is absolute - they all are abstract concepts that need concrete definitions to be applied in the real world.

For example, existing jurisprudence holds that the "right to bear arms" does not include the right to carry a weapon in a federal courthouse. Thus, prohibiting one from possessing a weapon while in a federal courthouse is not an infringement of the "right to bear arms."

We can have discourse on what the definition of the "right to bear arms" should and should not include, but asserting that it is a metaphysical absolute right to possess any weapon at any time in any place by anyone won't get taken very seriously in our political or judicial system.

What is it about the 2nd Amendment that "lacks definition?" I thought the 2nd Amendment WAS the definition.

As long as people willingly accept their rights being violated, more and more of them will be until we have none at all.

 

[ladder13]

"

We can have discourse on what the definition of the "right to bear arms" should and should not include, but asserting that it is a metaphysical absolute right to possess any weapon at any time in any place by anyone won't get taken very seriously in our political or judicial system.

Unfortunately our Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches have been compromised/distorted/corrupted way beyond original intent.

 

[nogods]

What is it about the 2nd Amendment that "lacks definition?" I thought the 2nd Amendment WAS the definition.

As long as people, such as yourself, willingly accept their rights being violated, more and more of them will be until we have none at all.

I don't willing accept rights being violated. I work hard everyday protecting the rights of my clients. And through my professional, social, and political activities I attempt to have a real, rather than abstract, impact on the effectuation of individual rights under the constitution.

But "rights" are neither self-defining, no defined by each unto his own.

People who want to influence the outcome of these evolving and unsettled issues are going to participate in the discourse of the definition of our constitutional rights, which has been the tradition of our country since its conception.

Those who decide to rely on mere slogans will end up having no influence on the outcome. Instead, they end up unwittingly allowing the opposition to command and control the outcome because they are blinded by their slogans and emotional response to the issues.

 

[cp1969]

I beg to differ.

Every right we enjoy in this country has its origin in the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment is part of it.

Any law passed, such as your "existing jurisprudence" which allows violation of the rights spelled out in the Constitution, is by definition, unconstitutional. That some people accept this without a fight does not change this.

Asserting that the rights in the Constitution are "abstract concepts which need definition to be applied to the real world" is total nonsense intended to create work for lawyers. If the writers of the Constitution thought these rights lacked definition, they would have added such. I suggest that the writers of the Constitution knew exactly what they were writing and what it meant.

Today's 'judicial system', if it can be called one, is the one who understands little of what it reads and nothing of what it writes. And that was the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment--when things get so far out of hand that the government ceases to be one which can understand and live within the Constitution written for it, there is one thing it will understand: The point of a gun.

 

[DeadManWalking]

What is it about the 2nd Amendment that "lacks definition?" I thought the 2nd Amendment WAS the definition.

As long as people, such as yourself, willingly accept their rights being violated, more and more of them will be until we have none at all.

Thank you.

 

[DeadManWalking]

The "right to bear arms" needs to be defined before we can determine whether or not it has been infringed.

None of the rights under our Constitution is absolute - they all are abstract concepts that need concrete definitions to be applied in the real world.

For example, existing jurisprudence holds that the "right to bear arms" does not include the right to carry a weapon in a federal courthouse. Thus, prohibiting one from possessing a weapon while in a federal courthouse is not an infringement of the "right to bear arms."

We can have discourse on what the definition of the "right to bear arms" should and should not include, but asserting that it is a metaphysical absolute right to possess any weapon at any time in any place by anyone won't get taken very seriously in our political or judicial system.

No, common sense says you don't take a firearm into a courthouse, or the state capitol or other government buildings but we are not discussing common sense, what we are discussing is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Again, no, these are NOT abstract ideas but RIGHTS defined by the founding fathers of this nation. Our rights as defined in the Constitution are God given and because they are God given man cannot take them away. Unless . . . We The People give them away with socialist thoughts like; "asserting that it is a metaphysical absolute right to possess any weapon at any time in any place by anyone won't get taken very seriously in our political or judicial system." Than our political and judicial system are wrong. Now you might want to relinquish your rights but you have no power to take mine. I leave you with this quote; If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. — Samuel Adams and another; The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson
Now be so good as to tell me that these two founding fathers, both signatory of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are wrong?

 

[Filbird]

Is the issue here the ability to possess firearms in one's home, versus the ability to carry them, concealed, wherever one goes?

I know two things. First, that a firearm is one of the most most unforgiving tools ever created that can be possessed by an individual human. It goes bang when you press the trigger, and you cannot call the bullet back. Second, that some of the people who can purchase a firearm, and carry it on their person, may not be entirely stable or prepared to use that tool responsibly. They may be able to negotiate the process to carry that firearm concealed legally; however, that does not mean that you or I would be comfortable with them in our house or car or place of business.

 

[The Big D]

DeadManWalking: Are you aware of the 1st Amendment?

 

[The Big D]

Okay, at what age should the 2nd Amendment apply? Should a nine year old be allowed to keep and bear arms?

Be safe.

 

[ladder13]

DMW...excuse my insatiable curiosity, what State do you reside in?

 

[ladder13]

Is the issue here the ability to possess firearms in one's home, versus the ability to carry them, concealed, wherever one goes?

I know two things. First, that a firearm is one of the most most unforgiving tools ever created that can be possessed by an individual human. It goes bang when you press the trigger, and you cannot call the bullet back. Second, that some of the people who can purchase a firearm, and carry it on their person, may not be entirely stable or prepared to use that tool responsibly. They may be able to negotiate the process to carry that firearm concealed legally; however, that does not mean that you or I would be comfortable with them in our house or car or place of business.

Heck, NOBODY comes into my house toting a weapon unless I know them and their gun handling habits. If that bothers anyone, stay away, don't trouble me in the least. I've seen plenty of knuckleheads at ranges all over this country. The 2nd does not apply in MY house, I'll infringe all I want.

 

[zoom6zoom]

Every right we enjoy in this country has its origin in the U.S. Constitution

No. They are natural rights. They are not granted by the Constitution, they are protected by it.

 

[DeadManWalking]

Is the issue here the ability to possess firearms in one's home, versus the ability to carry them, concealed, wherever one goes?

I know two things. First, that a firearm is one of the most most unforgiving tools ever created that can be possessed by an individual human. It goes bang when you press the trigger, and you cannot call the bullet back. Second, that some of the people who can purchase a firearm, and carry it on their person, may not be entirely stable or prepared to use that tool responsibly. They may be able to negotiate the process to carry that firearm concealed legally; however, that does not mean that you or I would be comfortable with them in our house or car or place of business.

But who makes that call? Our government? LOL! Heck, I'll bet if ANY of the founders were around today that OUR government would have them locked up as terrorist. Oh wait, they were terrorist.

 

[cp1969]

No. They are natural rights. They are not granted by the Constitution, they are protected by it.

You are right. I stand corrected.

 

[cp1969]

Is the issue here the ability to possess firearms in one's home, versus the ability to carry them, concealed, wherever one goes?

I know two things. First, that a firearm is one of the most most unforgiving tools ever created that can be possessed by an individual human. It goes bang when you press the trigger, and you cannot call the bullet back. Second, that some of the people who can purchase a firearm, and carry it on their person, may not be entirely stable or prepared to use that tool responsibly. They may be able to negotiate the process to carry that firearm concealed legally; however, that does not mean that you or I would be comfortable with them in our house or car or place of business.

None of this has changed since the day the 2nd Amendment was written. Firearms were just as unforgiving and yes, there were unstable and irresponsible people then, just as there are now. They knew that when the 2nd was written and chose not to place restrictions on ownership.

 

[DeadManWalking]

You are right. I stand corrected.

I believe the word we are looking for is "reaffirmed." Our Rights are God given and reaffirmed by the Constitution.