"State Rep. Mike Harmon, a Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, said Monday that he plans to introduce legislation during the 2011 General Assembly to allow Kentuckians to carry concealed weapons without a permit," Stephenie Steitzer of The Courier-Journal tells us.
Naturally, professional "Only Ones" like Jerry Wagner, executive director of the Kentucky Sheriffs Association, are agin' it, despite the model having successfully worked in Vermont for years, and more recently in Alaska and now Arizona. And despite the number of states where peaceable open carry without permits is a demonstrable reality...
So are some gun owners, opposed that is, including those representing themselves to be "gun rights" advocates. I saw the following response to this story on an NRA-related gun forum:
Permitting carry licenses tend to weed out people who are not responsible. This right comes with huge responsibility. One idiot that brandishes a weapon or shoots an innocent and everything we have worked for in the NRA will be undone. One idiot and the gun grabbers will have all they need.
Let's examine if these fears are warranted, and if we should heed this counsel and abandon this effort.
The law has a term for people it considers irresponsible to even own a gun, let alone carry one. They're called "prohibited persons." Anybody think they refrain from carrying because they don't have a license? And if they're caught with a gun, concealed or otherwise, they'll be arrested. Nothing in Rep. Harmon's bill will change that.
All rights come with responsibilities. Exercising them knowledgeably and appropriately is the responsibility of free adults--not government bureaucrats who charge a fee to dictate whether or not they approve, and under what circumstances and where a supplicant will be permitted to exercise them.
Unpermitted "idiots" already brandish and shoot innocents. We call these people "criminals." It's the permitted carriers the antis are gunning for--as evidenced by Violence Policy Center's "Concealed Carry Killers" project. It's every time a gun owner with a CCW license commits a crime of violence that the gun grabbers have a "we told you so" field day.
As for the gun grabbers having all they need, molon labe, baby...and that requires not letting the assertion "everything we have worked for in the NRA will be undone" go unaddressed. It's a variant of "If not for the NRA, we'd have lost our gun rights years ago."
Anyone who actually believes that has already prepared themselves to surrender theirs.
That many do should concern those of us who don't as much as any other threat to the right to keep and bear arms. There are actually voices in the so-called "pro-gun community" who ridicule "shall not be infringed" and the commitment of those who mean it when they say "We will not disarm."
Theirs are the voices who say we have to settle for a compromised gain rather than trying for an outright win, that we must vote for the lesser of two evils... They were the ones who were against filing a Second Amendment lawsuit long before Heller forced the issue because..."What if we lose?" (That's an actual reply given to me almost 20 years ago from a former NRA executive.)
Politics, we are told, as if majority opinion is the final determinant of liberty, is the art of the possible. What envelope the safe-players have pushed to know what's truly possible remains unsaid. Can you imagine where we'd be if our history was one of avoiding risks?
But the perfect, we are cautioned, is the enemy of the good.
Not meaning to come off as sacrilegious, but I see that as the perfect caption for a Roman soldier to be saying to another as he drives in the nails.
Maybe if--instead of balking over potential repercussions or contingencies or setbacks or defeats--we came out strongly and with enthusiasm for measures like the Kentucky Constitutional Carry bill, if we actually got involved outside of forum echo chambers and personally helped the principals (as opposed to critiquing from the sidelines), we'd improve the odds, generate the momentum needed to win the field and rout the opposition, and then, victorious, fix sights on the next objective.
Maybe if we did the same in political contests...
Note to the platitude-parroting "art experts": Anything is possible. It's in our power to make things probable.
------------
Official Criminals for Gun Control
Oh, I'm sorry--I got the name wrong. I mean Michael Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns."
American Trigger Sports Network host James B. Towle and I will be discussing the mayor's criminal allies in citizen disarmament today at Noon PST on Trigger Sports LIVE!
------------
Help wanted--inquire within
Regular readers: Please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends? And get more commentary on the gun rights stories of the day at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.
Comments
Just today in the Arizona Republic newspaper was an article about a prohibited person being arrested for carrying illegally.
The fact that citizens can now carry "permitless" in Arizona notwithstanding, this guy was a convicted felon and legally unable to carry.
That's the ONLY news I've heard or read about since constitutional carry was adopted in Arizona.
So much for the tired old "blood on the streets" propaganda.
"No free man shall be debarred the use of arm." - founding father.
If a person is too dangerous to carry a firearm they should be locked up. Once they have served their time their Creator endowed rights are in effect again. Just because we've allowed Tyrants to pass laws infringing our rights does not mean those laws are legal. "Any law repugnant to the Constitution is nul and void." - Supreme Court Justice
Forgot to "reply" so this is duplicated below. That one can be removed.
"Theirs are the voices who say we have to settle for a compromised gain rather than trying for an outright win, that we must vote for the lesser of two evils..."
David, this so much reminds me of Reagan's "time to choose" speech. "And therein lies the road to war because those voices do not speak for the rest of us."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt1fYSAChxs&eurl=http://reagancoaliti... at about 25:20
Well done.
Amen David.
I for one am tired of the half measures, nearly as tired of them as I am of the "blood in the streets" claim which comes along (like a side of soggy fries) with every attempt to restore some measure of our RKBA.
If more effort was put towards stopping criminals than stopping freedoms, just think of where we could be as a nation.
We are all tired of half-measures yet we still do nothing!
The only thing that terrifies them more than permitless carry is Open Carry.
This is Robert- Once again the critics of permitless concealed carry use the concept of potential to mean absolutely will when they have no evidence to support their claims except for the nearly random act of a (one) criminal as opposed to all the law bidding citicens who do not violate the law.
Compromise: The art of giving to your enemy that which he is not powerful enough to take...
Compromise with your wife. Do not compromise your Liberty, and do not stand with those who would have you compromise. Ultimately, it is Us versus Them...and if you compromise, you are Them.
Sam
III
I don't know which side to take, no permit needed, I don't have a problem with, but I think passing some mandetory firearm safety training and basic proficiency testing should be part of the equation, and I've been carrying (going through the hassles and permitting) and shooting for over 47 years. You have to pass a drivers test. Same concept. I've seen some real idiots at the range, and there are some people who are outright mentally unfit to carry. Carrying also involves some responsibilities some people are not capable of.
But some of the KY laws are outright stupid. Having held a MA carry permit for 40+ years, if I visited KY, my MA permit would have been valid, but when I moved to KY, I had to wait 6 months to even apply for one, but I could open carry, which I didn't like to, but did. No logic to some of the permiting laws. Just my 2 cents worth.
You wrote: "You have to pass a drivers test. "
I understand what you are trying to say, but the difference is that driving on public roads is a PRIVILEDGE. Having the means to defend yourself is a RIGHT.
Even with mandatory driving tests, licensing, liability insurance, etc, there are those that do not play by the rules. People are more likely to be killed a/o injured by an unlicensed, uninsured, or otherwise 'non-compliant' driver than anybody carrying - concealed or open. I'll take my chances with the armed dumb@ss over the dumb@ss drivers any day of the week.
Not really wanting to offend, but MA says it all. I fear that those from the Northeast are accustomed to the loss of their rights and only want to take baby steps to regain what was lost. There are those of us from the so-called Bible thumping/Redneck part of the states that were raised on stories of pure freedom and we want and demand their restoration. The loss of our rights have only been for two generations, our fathers/grandfathers, although uneducated, fully understood what the 2nd amendment meant. Individuals doing stupid acts are everywhere and usually they learn or clean themselves out of the gene pool. I too have seen idiotic acts at ranges, but that is why people go to ranges, to learn and those at those ranges do learn for the most part. Nothing is absolute and I for one would rather see individuals have the freedom to make mistakes, have the freedom to protect ones self, have the freedom to fail or succeed, than to have the State determine my future...
If I may be so bold, they are not afraid they are ill informed and a product of a system that has since Lincoln indoctrinated its youth and generations to follow what is prescribed by the Federal government...its time to VOTE third party people...
As always David- shared and wonderfully written!
Any time you allow licensing or other means of control of your rights, you have turned those rights into a "privilege" Gun control is not now nor has it ever been about guns. It's strictly about control. Right now in Iowa, we have no gun "registration" laws. I have more than a few guns that did not go through a dealer to come into my possession. This is the way it should be. It's no body's business what guns I own as long as I am breaking no laws.
You said it best David, Molon Labe Baby!!
I've met gun owners who think we should have a permit just to own a gun. Sigh....
The perfect is not the enemy of the good; rather without the perfect, the good would not even exist,
Here in Arizona the only gun owners that I knew who were against not having to have a permit to conceal carry were the ones who made money teaching CCW classes. Guess to them the 2nd amendment has a price
Another great article David ...
"This right comes with huge responsibility." Sure it does, but not a permit - that's called prior restraint. What part of "... Shall not be infringed." doesn't this clown understand ???
"driving on public roads is a PRIVILEDGE" Every time I see this kind of crap I want to scream ... The right to travel unimpeded in colonial times wasn't even a consideration, or we'd have a BoR amendment protecting it. If King George the 3rd had required a "rider's license" & a license plate on the back of every horse's ass, I think the colonists would have started shooting a lot sooner :-)
" If King George the 3rd had required a "rider's license" lamp; a license plate on the back of every horse's ass, I think the colonists would have started shooting a lot sooner :-)"
Amen Brother...unimpeded travel wasnt considered because its basic, and the ONLY reason the 2A was added was to specifically codify a hedge vs the tyrannical and twisted instincts of man...which of course protects free travel as well...
Traveling unimpeded is still a right. Traveling on "postage roads" is a privilege. The Constitution delegates the creation of postage roads to the Federal Government. Therefore the Federal Government may fully control those roads. Roads created by states can be controlled by the state. If traveling on roads were a right then the state could not legally put DWI road blocks (prior restraint) upon them at whim. A right is something that no Government or man may stop another from doing. Education, Health Care, owning and caring arms, and owning property are a few examples of rights. I can't force others to provide for my exercise of my rights. I can put a bandage on my cut or pay another to do it but I can't force another to do it and have someone else pay for it.
David, you've knocked another one out of the park. Your average is getting right up there with Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, just a different portion of the Liberty Spectrum!
DC,
I take issue with your caracterization that education and healthcare are rights. I have been looking for these "rights" for years in the constitution and our founding documents and can find them nowhere. If they were "rights" then there would be no cost to them. Calling them rights and enforcing the concept is simply theft of the work of the providers by the government through mandated regulations, pay scales, and licensing schemes (if you don't perform this work for 10% of what you could charge, I will not permit you to provide this service).
That was Theaton in a comment above who said education and healthcare are rights.
He's absolutely correct--they are. The government has no legitimate power to prevent you from acquiring either.
That's quite different from it being your right to have the government force someone else to provide it to you.
The Constitution does not define all our powers and rights as citizens (see 9th and 10th Amendments)--for instance, if you relied on the words alone, you have no enumerated right to eat or breathe. One of the arguments the Federalists made against including a Bill of Rights--they challenged how anyone could fear the govt would ever assume powers not specifically delegated to it--thus viewing a BOR as not only unnecessary, but potentially dangerous because some might think the rights listed therein would be the only ones recognized. And you might be surprised how many media-anointed "conservatives" make just that argument.
...shall not be infringed.
It says what it means and it means what it says.
Simple.
Sam
III
You're absolutely correct. However, words on a parchment can't stop a Tyrannical government, such as we've had off and on for 80 plus years. The words provide the basis for action. We the people provide the power. The problem is that the large majority of we the people are cowards. We've come to enjoy beer and weekend football far greater than freedom and liberty. We will not risk them or anything else to restore the Republic!
"One idiot that brandishes a weapon or shoots an innocent and everything we have worked for in the NRA will be undone. One idiot and the gun grabbers will have all they need."
Just for fun, let's examine the implicit assumption here, the other side of this same argument:
"If we all have to get permits to carry our legal guns, then whenever some idiot brandishes a gun who doesn't have a permit, all us law-abiding gun owners will escape the blame, and nobody will try to pass any more laws to restrict our gun rights."
Now, if you believe THAT, I want some of what you've been smoking for the last 45 years, because this runs contrary to everything that the gun-grabbers have already done over that time period.
Some of us - not naming any names - have carried permit-less through every state in the country. We wouldn't think of living with the thought that we _could_ have protected our wives, our selves or other loved ones, but didn't because the fools who create laws don't understand what "shall not be infringed" means. Was there risk involved? Absolutely. Was it worth it? Absolutely.
" I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Robert A. Heinlein
As an AZ CCW Permit Instructor since 1994, I can say that it's definitely a good thing that most of my students got the training when it was required - at a guess, I'd say that only about 10% already had what I consider an acceptable level of skill and legal knowledge before class, and thus were truly just satisfying a statutory requirement. The other 90% had at least one gap in either their shooting skills or their legal knowledge that my class helped fill - and keep in mind, the permit-holders in AZ only amount to about 3-5% of the total population who are legally eligible to buy/carry a gun.
Of course, maybe my perspective is skewed because the truly well-trained, knowledgeable folks out there AREN'T coming to my class in the first place...nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that whether or not one believes that such training should be MANDATED, we can all agree that such training is, for the most part, BENEFICIAL.
Therefore, what I'd love to see is our citizens being encouraged to take training, NOT via NEGATIVE INCENTIVIZATION(i.e. take the class or be penalized), but via POSITIVE INCENTIVIZATION such as a rebate or free gifts from handgun manufacturers when one sends in proof of training along with proof of the purchase of the manufacturer's firearms.
If a state were to charge a "training surcharge" on firearm and or ammo purchases and people who could show proof of acceptable training were exempt I think you would see lots more people being trained. No mandates involved.
trainning is beneficial of course, and should be encouraged as a matter of 'common sense'...but potentially dooming a citizen to victim status, under the guise of rule of 'law', is inherently evil...
Applying a "training surcharge" on arms and ammunition is just another infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. How has this country created so many Socialists?
I know many firearms owners and many police officers. Of the two groups the police officers are the most poorly trained. We pay taxes for their training yet they don't do it.
Phil,
Thanks for your suggestion of POSITIVE incentive. I've been looking for that thought for a long while and my pea-brain just hasn't been able to come up with it. I really like that and will push it with my gun-rights crowd and political reps here in Fla.
Good point Phil, excellent way to address the training barrier...
"this guy was a convicted felon and legally unable to carry." anonymous above
"No free man shall be debarred the use of arm." - founding father.
If a person is too dangerous to carry a firearm they should be locked up. Once they have served their time their Creator endowed rights are in effect again. Just because we've allowed Tyrants to pass laws infringing our rights does not mean those laws are legal. "Any law repugnant to the Constitution is nul and void." - Supreme Court Justice
I've never taken a Gunsight or a Front Sight course, never met Gabe Suarez or any of his ilk, nor have I ever shot anybody. Came close in CT a few years back but I don't like to dwell on it.
The underlying reason for my personal opinion on mandatory training is as follows: The Warrior Mentality.
People carrying guns without the will to use them are a liability to themselves, their loved ones, and the good, honest people around them, most of all if they draw said weapon in an attempt to frighten a criminal out of said perps current course of action without the cajones to blow said perp away.
There are also several legal caveats that the untrained will have no idea of, opening themselves up to massive legal liability up to and including the loss of their gun rights, David, which should be of utmost concern to YOU of all writers on the subject.
1) drawing a weapon in any case other than reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury (the MT verbiage but it's similar in most places) is an illegal act. It should be. A normal, law abiding citizen becomes the 'idiot with a gun' if he's whipping out heat in anything other than life-threatening situations (actually, it applies to knives, too). Burglary is not on that list!! Most normal people aren't aware enough of the LAW to know that. A training course solidifies that for them.
2) Let's look next at the statistics (since they bother collecting them) of police officers whose own guns are taken from them by perps and used on them. A staggering percentage, considering the ongoing qualification and supposed training they receive. That includes drawn weapons as well as holstered weapons. All of a sudden you're not even talking about whether or not a person can a) shoot what they're aiming at or b) muster up the stuff to pull the trigger. Now you're talking about the hand-to-hand combat knowledge (Tueller Drill, Tueller Drill, Tueller Drill) to keep their deadly repeating weapon in their posession if they are surprised, or lack the surety to pull the trigger and a perp is within that 21 foot radius. The Tueller Drill assumes a perp in front of you, by the way, not outside the periphery of your vision... A TRAINING COURSE AND ONLY A TRAINING COURSE will lay these realities out for people in black and white.
3) The basic issue of marksmanship. How many horror stories do you hear of cops missing everything they shoot at in actual confrontational situations, when they're forced to qualify and re-qualify with the exact gun they carry on duty? Why do you think they miss? Do you really believe that encouraging people with NO EFFING IDEA how to safely use, clean, aim or fire a weaon, no god-pounded clue how to hit a target in a stress-free situation much less a life-or-death scenario should be doing so? I don't. Especially if I'm the innocent bystander with my back to the situation just off to one side of the area behind the target of some untrained fool exercising his god-given right to self defense. We are, unfortunately, lazy-ass americans. Go ahead and try to deny it. I don't mean you or your ex-marine buddies, but society as a whole. You really think you're going to get everybody to get proficient by suggesting politely that they take extra time, go spend extra money (especially in this economy) and get 'good', even versus paper targets? (how, btw, do you tell people to engage in stress drills, time stress drills, malfunction drills and putting a face on a target?
David, you of all people ought to want as many people who aren't threats to themselves or others carrying guns so that the right is not taken away, justifiably summarily. I understand where you're coming from with your article but it's irresponsible to ignore the above points. AIN'T NOBODY GETTING ANY OF IT WITHOUT A TRAINING COURSE. Nobody was born knowing any of it. And a significant percentage of the people who need said course to not become that 'idiot with a gun' won't take the course unless you make them, because 'it's their right to keep and bear arms', and ain't nobody gonna make them take no stupid course, or whatever their personal version is.
Reality sucks. Being a rabid RKBA-er is just as unrealistic (thoughtless, stupid, and unproductively ridiculous) as being a rabid anti-gunner. So yes, I believe weapons training courses should either be mandatory or so hugely incentivized that its not worth your time not to take them.
For instance, if you want to not make them mandatory: Half off any gun, new or used, with the presentation of a new, video verified marksman or better long gun or pistol target (lets call it one per month at half off so the gun companies don't go out of business). Ammo discounts for monthly qualification at certified ranges for a vastly reduced ($5-10) fee. Whatever the hell you want.
The bottom line is that if you or your kids are out doors, you should be afraid of the cops trying to bring down a perp in the general area, much less an untrainded civilian. We lazy ass americans won't, for the most part (I'm happy to be an exception to the rule with only a few hundred pistol and rifle rounds a week downrange) train without either mandate or sufficient incentive.
'nuff said for today...
Number 1 is not "similar in most places" In "Castle Doctrine" states you can assume the person is there to do harm, you don't have to have "reasonable fear....." Other places allow for the protection of property. This also doesn't require the fear requirement.
Number 2 and 3 , I read all the stories I can on personal self-defense incidents and the ones in which the defender had their firearm taken away are few and far between. So much so that I would say they are statistically insignificant when compared to police that have their firearms taken away. Also, in police involved shootings, innocent bystanders are shot at around twice the rate of citizen self-defense shootings. My personal experience with officers that are friends and non officer friends is that non-officers train far more regularly than police officers. The officers I know only train before re-qualification and non-officers train at least weekly.
Finally, "cajones to blow said perp away?" Who talks like this? No officer or non-officer gun owners that I know do. I'd be interested to know if this is just me?
Phrase it any way you want. Call it moral ascendency if the verbiage tickles your fancy. Cajones to blow a perp away is the same concept, phrased so the same morons who believe training is unnecesary will be able to grasp intellectually...
Castle doctrine only applies to private property. Nobody has a right to dictate your carry options on yours or the personal property of anybody who's given you a right to be there. I defy you to name me the places where property (other than a vehicle you're inside or your residence) may be defended with deadly force. And if you bother, I'm willing to bet a closer inspection of applicable law will prove YOU wrong.
Oh, and IN MOST CASES currently, STATES REQUIRE PERMITS WHICH REQUIRE A TRAINING COURSE. I like the idea of permitless carry, which is what the article is about. I wholly disagree with the untrained going around armed. Self training is better than nothing, but not as good as professional, paid training, and is difficult to get the average citizen to engage in. Look at traffic accidents. They're just trying to get from point A to point B, and they DO mandate drivers education for most drivers licenses.
You have a RESPONSIBILITY to be safe along with your (and mine end everybody else's) cherished RKBA. IF YOU'RE NOT SAFE IN YOUR CARRYING OF A FIREARM, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT, and YOU ARE WRONG. You're a danger to the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of everybody around you if you carry a gun and don't have the first bloody clue how to use it. Lots of us do, because of past military training, or the personal time and training and money to learn. 18th Airborne boy who comments below got his training for free, and would have the same attitude if he were wholly untrained, changing his stance from one of trained contempt to one of foolish anarchistic lunacy.
Innocent people get killed that way. We're trying to preserve life, safety and etc., not feel cool because we can own a powerful tool capable of destruction of life with little effort. People have the duty to learn what they're doing with guns, and how to do it safely, and well (yes, I believe in the shoot to stop the action, twice in the chest and once in the head, doctrine. It implies not missing.) in all cases.
If you have the training to safely use, and the will to use in a timely manner, a weapon capable of taking the life of another, then your responsbility is commensurate with your natural right to self defense and your RKBA isjustified. Otherwise you ARE an idiot with a gun and DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO CARRY, permit or not.
Why would you be defending anything but yourself, your loved ones or private property unless you are in a war, in which case self-defense laws would be mostly moot? The rules of engagement would be in effect then.
As I said, I don't know any firearms owners that aren't trained equal to or better than most police officers. I'm sure there are some but I don't see many, if any, instances of an untrained gun owner causing any massive problems. We can pretend that it happens often but it doesn't so to worry about untrained gun owners is a strawman argument.
My right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on anything but being a citizen. Is the free speech dependent on a degree in journalism or even a basic English course? Is my religious right based on the need to go to a seminary? Of course not. Do I have a responsibility? Yes I do but it is my responsibility and not yours or any other persons. It's no wonder our rights our so infringed with so many wanting to control the lives of others. I don't recall anyone, including myself, in this thread saying training isn't a good thing, most just don't think it is the governments or you position to tell us what and how much training is required.
You are very good at straw man arguments and calling people names. You're also very good at capitalizing names. You must have training on how to use the shift and caps lock keys. Is your journalism degree in capitalizing obviously important words or trying to make unimportant words look important by capitalizing them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David,
I'm sorry this was off topic but I felt the need to respond. This will be my last post on this subject.
Not to be too picky, but one of the responders said that "Castle Doctrine" laws apply only to private property. Not exactly. Florida's law covers anyplace you have a lawful right to be while engaged in any lawful activity.
Hey great idea there. A "Training surcharge." WOW.
Wouldn't if have been great had we had such a thing regarding voter "registration" prior to the last presidential election?
I bet something like that could be used to get the people to read the books the Government wants them to read or ...?
The government doesn't want you reading ANY books. They want you as ignorant as they can make you. Name me the basic concepts that anybody you voted for in the last election holds as inalienable. (without spending an hour on their website, if it's even there). Tell me how NOT insisting that voters know a blessed thing before allowing them to vote didn't put Obama in the White house.
I'm not talking about a permit to own a gun, you retard. I'm talking about people who carry guns having the training to be able to safely carry one around me, my wife and my kids, without me being more nervous about them than the criminals. I can stop anybody not already holding a gun to my head myself, or at least I'm gonna try, and I'm not worried about me, 'cause I know I train...
The first time an untrained 'law abiding citizen', exercising their permitless (or any other form of guaranteed untrained) right to defend themselvs tags my wife in their attempt to shoot some robber, I'm going to kill them first and THEN worry about the robber, because a) they just shot my wife, and I'm defending her life, b) I don't care that they are (or claim to be) trying to stop some other crime, they just commited a whole list of illegal actions and are now a criminal to my reasonable mind, and c) I CAN hit what I aim at, moving or stationary, BECAUSE I TRAIN...
Most of us who carry to begin with have no way of knowing its an accident in a situation like that. After all, we aren't stopping to take the time to interview the guy with the gun who just shot somebody we know, we're going to stop them from putting anybody else in danger, rather than pulling the Liberal card and either hiding until the gunfire stops or trying (over the sound of gunshots and subsequent yelling) to politely ask some unknown person with a gun to please stop shooting.
Right now, most states require a permit to carry concealed. Fine if they stop. Right now, most of the people who have the moral character, trust themselves to have the training, self restraint and I.Q. to know when to use a gun, and the money to buy them, also (statistically) live in the states that require permitting to (legally) carry, which requres a training course to get. Most places also require no permit to carry openly (let's not talk about DC just now, I'm already frothy enough). The same group of people who trust themselves to carry concealed will carry openly if they feel the need.
Permitless concealed carry opens up the door to everybody (even the folks who don't trust themsleves to pass a permit check) to carry. It also opens up the door to untrained carry. Right now, VT and AZ that I'm aware of don't require permits. How many people that were a) legal to own guns in the first place, and b) not getting permits, are now carrying permitless in AZ? How many people in a mostly liberal hole like VT are carrying at all, much less permitless? Does it matter? Can they hit what they aim at, and not me or my family, friends, associates?
Training assures that they can. It adds moral ascendency to the natural right to self defense without endangering others (illegally).
Hey URU,
If your talking about states, we know you're not talking about DC right now. DC IS NOT A STATE!
WOW, capital letters do make you feel all powerful. I better get some training to know how to use them correctly.
Ok....I have to say it...Its the Second Amendment stupid!!!!
Would we be having this same discussion if these proposals were made concerning the First Amendment? Or any other amendment for that matter? Imagine if the government said in order for you to deliver a speech you had to go through 50 hours of training and be permitted. Or you could not give a speech within 1000 ft of a school; liberals would be all over the airwaves screaming their heads off with their hair on fire.
That being said, as a law abiding citizen, I do not care what a state says when it comes to how I carry a firearm. It find it ludicrous that if I want to carry my firearm on my hip for all the world to see (and freak out over) I can, but if I want to take that same firearm and put it in my pocket, I have to pay nearly 200 dollars to take extensive firearms training (despite 13 years in the US Army's 18th Airborne Corps), pay to apply for a license, and do it all over again in five years. Meanwhile, my name goes on a list of those who own a gun.
Likewise, why should I have to read through all the propaganda at the entrance of a licensed business open to the public to see if they happened to post a small sign prohibiting firearms, then worry about the possibility of not seeing it? Why should I have to worry about driving through a school zone in some states with my loaded firearm? Simply stated, the patchwork of state and local laws are too burdensome to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights.
So, I, LIKE ANY OTHERS I KNOW, WILL NOT get a concealed carry permit and WILL continue to carry my firearm in any manner I see fit. If someone does not like it, then search me, but you better have probable cause first, and my behavior will not warrant probable cause, so when you find my gun through violating my 4th Amendment rights, the evidence will be tossed out. (If it works for the criminal it works for me)
Likewise, if I happen to need to use my weapon for personal defense of my life, the perpetrator will not survive to be a witness of where my gun was before I shot him dead. If somehow he does, and it becomes a legal issue, I will have no problem accepting the millions of dollars in legal assistance to take my case to the US Supreme Court to put an end to these kangaroo weapons laws. But, rest assured, I will not be carried out in a box because some wuss was concerned I MIGHT become a bad guy.
That being said, the answer to this is not a court fight. The answer is that you HAMMER anyone who uses OR POSSESSES a firearm in the commission of a crime or if they have been deemed ineligible by a court to carry a firearm by giving them life in prison without parole. (Automatic three strikes) It would certainly cost a lot less to lock these jokers up for life than to administer the patchwork of gun laws and monitoring systems for the millions of law abiding criminals.
Heh Heh Heh, good to see some of the other folks who actually can hit what they aim at piping up. But the libs are too stupid to know it ALREADY HAS HAPPENED with the First Amendment, and i hear they're chasing the DISCLOSE act again. Have you heard massive liberal outrage? I think not...
Choosing to break stupid laws is a personal choice. I bet you don't try that stance in Federal buildings or anywhere else with a metal detector (oh wait, instant consequences), despite the vague and dubious constitutional authority to stop you from carrying those places. Oh, and by the way, the Second Amendment is just that, an amendment. It shoudln't have to exist, but there it is.
Although I have a permit, like you I carry anywhere I don't think they have a metal detector, except when I'm drinking 'cause then I'm a liability too. I also, after spending enough a month to pay for a new car in ammo costs, can hit what I can shoot, in stress drills and whenever my shooting buddies (usually in appropriate physical settings) scream the source of an (inert) target at me and keep going till i 'drop' it. I fail if it takes more than 3 seconds. Do you really think most people can do that? Would you want your kids playing around around those folks? Don't you remember all those guys from basic training who could barely qualify as 'idiot' with a rifle? The dudes you didn't want behind you in combat formation because they were as likely to shoot you in the back as the bad guys in the chest? And you really want those idiots carrying in the mall around your teenagers or the grocery store (technically illegal in most places since they mostly sell beer/wine, i.e. alcohol as well as food) around your wife? When they're as likely to shoot your family as the bad guy?
C'mon here, a little common sense. If you're happy with the well-meaning, law-abiding morons of the nation carrying, that's your choice. just like carrying where you're not supposed to, but it ain't a good idea.
And btw, no, you won't get help from SAF or NRA or CCRKBA if you get busted carrying in a school zone. You'll get sent to 'you got a purdy mouth' federal penetentiary for as long as they can make it stick and they'll treat you like a child rapist once you get out in terms of buying firearms (unless your buddies will sell you guns on the side). Don't be a fool.
And you really believe all the fools ACORN got to double and triple vote would have done so if they'd had any constitutional understanding or background? asshole...
Knock that off right now.
I don't have a problem with this t
How many are old enough to remember a time you just needed the money to buy a gun? No paper work or anything Funny you heard very little about gun crime back then
Phil Wong's statement about POSITIVE reinforcement of training deserves more repetition. Requiring training is wrong, and despite of all the benefits of _proper_ training, placing conditions upon the use or possession of a natural , unalienable right is just *wrong*. We shouldn't even have to make that point in this forum.
As a former police officer who later got private training that showed how woefully inadequate my academy training was, I agree that _proper_ training cannot be over-emphasized. Most of us will get it simply because we want to be effective in defending ourselves and our loved ones, but encouragement for those who need it is a superlative idea. Thank you, Phil!
There have been quite a few positive responses to Phil Wong's suggestion that we encourage more people to get trained on proper use of the guns they are carrying. My suggestion of a "training surcharge" on gun and ammunition sales however is one of very few proposals on here on how that might be done. I feel that if people were going to pay for training until they actually got trained, more people would take the classes. Quite a few of you didn't like my suggestion at all. Ok, fine! How would you guys go about it?
Well, for starters, I suggested that the major handgun manufacturers offer rebates or free gifts when a buyer sends in proof of purchase of one of the manufacturer's new handguns, and proof of a valid CCW permit or a copy of a certificate from a recognized training organization like Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, Front Sight, John Farnam, Massad Ayoob, etc.
- S&W is already offering a $50 cash rebate for sending in proof of purchase, Springfield is already including a free holster, mag pouch and extra mags with their new XD pistols, Glock already extends discounted LE-pricing to military personnel, many local gun shops already offer free range passes or discounted range memberships with the purchase of a gun; it would take very little extra effort, and incur relatively little additional cost, to extend the same benefits to documentably-trained gun purchasers.
- Federal/state/local government *could* provide certain positive incentives for training and receiving a CCW permit(e.g. no NICS check when buying a gun, reciprocal-recognition of your permit, allowing carry in certain areas); the problem is, in a very real sense, this amounts to not much more than a grudging partial restoration of a Constitutionally-guaranteed right that ought not to have been infringed or abridged in the first place. Likewise, any kind of rebate or grant predicated on such criteria simply represents the return of taxpayer monies to its rightful, already-overtaxed, owners.
- Gun manufacturers have a vested interest in ensuring that purchasers of their guns are NOT criminals, and ARE trained in the safe, effective, legal usage of their guns; this can be rather neatly accomplished through the mechanism of a well-designed training class, and by voluntarily submitting to the process of a criminal-history check which is usually part of the CCW process.
- The better-trained a gun owner is, the more likely they are to enjoy shooting(positive-reinforcement cycle), and the more likely they are to both introduce new folks to the shooting community and teach them sound shooting/safety habits, which directly translates into more sales of guns, holsters, practice ammo, cleaning supplies, range fees/memberships, etc.
Honestly, I believe that this kind of positive incentivization is the best, most constitutionally-correct, free-market solution to the "training dilemma" - make the training so worthwhile, both inherently and financially, that choosing to not take training becomes literally "penny-wise, pound-foolish."
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!