Mandatory Training for OC and CC

[ManInBlack]

Its funny how you are quick to recite freedoms and amendments to me, but its seems that if anyone expresses an opinion contrary to yours you get angry...isn't that a bit contradictory. I've been respectful the entire time simply offering another viewpoint, and yet you can't seem to debate without getting angry and resorting to name calling....like I said earlier...debate is healthy, take a step back, breathe...its going to be ok

Your problem is that you can't cite anything, even when prompted:

Originally Posted by RyanC1985
you could never have belonged to a hate group (whether you commited a crime on the hate group's behalf or not).

Originally Posted by ManInBlack
Cite please.

All you have is your opinion, and with all (un)due respect, it sucks. When all you have is a sucky opinion (not to mention one that goes against the current legal precedent in this country), well, as my grandfather used to say, "that don't buy no whiskey, son."

 

[ManInBlack]

I never said I was the one qualified to determine who is proficient and who isn't. I just said there should be standard in order to ensure they can carry safely. Just curious, are you a member of the sovereign citizens movement, you remind me of a guy I talked with about similiar issues, just wondering.

I am a member of no movement. I'm just a simple citizen who understands his rights, understands the law, and understands that you understand neither.

 

[RyanC1985]

Your problem is that you can't cite anything, even when prompted:





All you have is your opinion, and with all (un)due respect, it sucks. When all you have is a sucky opinion (not to mention one that goes against the current legal precedent in this country), well, as my grandfather used to say, "that don't buy no whiskey, son."

Well if you look at my original post, I was looking for opinions not case law. You're so angry brother, calm down...again just a discussion of opinions...you're guns are safe LOL

 

[RyanC1985]

I am a member of no movement. I'm just a simple citizen who understands his rights, understands the law, and understands that you understand neither.

LOL you got all that from a single encounter on a chat forum...you're pretty insightful. Again, breathe...its all going to be ok.

 

[xd shooter]

Right but I'm not proposing disarming the people, just believe with certain rights come certain responsibilities.

Actually, you ARE.

If someone can't pass your "requirements" they don't get to "Keep and Bear Arms", correct?

If ONE person is denied, then you have disarmed "The People".

Training also does NOT guarantee proficiency. Note the number of bad drivers who have "training".....lol

 

[SavageOne]

Well if you look at my original post, I was looking for opinions not case law. You're so angry brother, calm down...again just a discussion of opinions...you're guns are safe LOL

Yes, and in a later post you said this

You already accept some rules as to who should and shouldn't carry. Examples would be age requirement of 21 or 18 years old depending on where you are. You can't be a felon, you could never have belonged to a hate group (whether you commited a crime on the hate group's behalf or not).

I think we all agree that 12 year olds should not be walking around with a gun on their hip...I just believe age doesn't make you a safe gun handler, knowledge and training does.

You imply that belonging to a hate group would disallow carry. You are new so allow me to direct you to Rule #5 of this forum.

5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

You have been asked to cite a source for your claim, and as yet have failed to. I hope you will either make such a cite or please admit you were wrong. I mean, it is the only responsible thing to do.

 

[rotorhead]

I'm wholly in agreement with the idea of people that carry guns should seek training in the safe operation of guns, as well as familiarization training in their state laws in regards to gun ownership. I do not believe it should be mandatory.

Then again I don't think that a person's voting ability should be tied to their conformance to a possible draft, either. That form of legal arm-wringing has no place in a free society.

The problem with mandatory requirements and "training" before one is allowed to exercise their rights is that the "training" becomes something which is hardly set in stone. It establishes precedent which then can be manipulated by a state government (or federal) to force people to conform to their will. Any mandatory training can then also be denied to people that are deemed insufficient to receive the training. In that way, guns are controlled via bypassing the 2nd Amendment. A state is able to deny a person their rights through the lack of qualified training.

No other right goes through the hoops that gun ownership does. No other right is as controlled and regulated. No other right faces complete extinction like the ones expressed in the 2nd Amendment. Any form of mandatory, state-approved training that people are subjected to is nothing more than a gateway which can be exploited and manipulated, with the natural byproduct of revenue generation tossed in for good measure. This may work for things which are deemed "privileges", but for rights, it should not be so.

So, I encourage all gun owners to go out and train. Go learn your laws as they apply, and practice often. Doing so helps your knowledge base and makes you a better shooter. However, I do not believe that such training should be mandatory.

 

[ManInBlack]

Some of the comments have pointed out the fact that requiring "mandatory" training "infringes" on a "right", and rightly so. The problem is, without training, they are too great a danger to others and themselves. So, while it shouldn't be mandatory, it HIGHLY ADVISABLE (as well as desireable) for some training.

Again, you can't make a blanket statement for all people. While some may be awful without training (although they have a fair likelihood of being awful even with training), I could point you to others who have never had formal training but are some of the safest, fastest, straightest shooters you'd ever want to meet. One size does not fit all.

Some of you may not like this, but I would also suggest that most people that want to carry, should be checked out mentally in the same way they check for barred individuals (felons, spousal abuse, etc.) to see if there are any major attitude control problems that would cause these individuals to be too high a risk to the general public.

Oh, Lord...so we get to go to a mental health quack, of your choosing, who will determine who among the "free" citizenry is suitable to exercise an unalienable right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry

Where in the heck did all of you statists come from?

ETA: Try taking the liberty pill. Hint - it's not the red or the blue pill.

 

[jayspapa]

If people are so unsafe without proper training , I wonder how the good citizens of Vermont have kept from killing each other off. They have never had to get a permit nor training to strap on a gun and walk down the street.

I'm sure if it presented a problem where people were being shot left and right because of all the accidents , there would be something in the news.

As far as the felons being restricted , I say make them serve the full term . None of this early release because of good behavior BS . Like another poster stated , if they are a danger to society , they should be kept locked up or put to death . If they are safe to walk among the law abiding , then they should have their rights restored.

 

[ManInBlack]

Last I checked, these weren't enumerated anywhere in our Constitution. IOW, they are not RIGHTS.

That is a dangerous road to go down. We do not possess only those rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The Bill-of-Rights is much more of a "top-ten" than an all-inclusive list.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[MKEgal]

Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?

No. Or at least, not until ALL rights are held to the same standard.
(By which point they won't be rights.)

I'm wholly in agreement with the idea of people that carry guns should seek training in the safe operation of guns, as well as familiarization training in their state laws in regards to gun ownership. I do not believe it should be mandatory.
...
No other right goes through the hoops that gun ownership does.
No other right is as controlled and regulated.
No other right faces complete extinction like the ones expressed in the 2nd Amendment.

+1

The one right that says "shall not be infringed"...

Actually, there are a number which have the same idea, just different language.
4A "shall not be violated"
8A "shall not be required... imposed... inflicted"
14A "no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities"
15A, 19A, 24A, 26A "shall not be denied or abridged"

So, to answer your question: It appears to me that putting the responsibility on the citizen to learn how to properly be responsible for knowing the laws, and also the care and feeding of their own weapons, it works.

+1 Just like all the other rights.

HUMAN RIGHTS require no competency test - ANY of them - speech, self-defense, the press, practicing a religion.

People should be free, IMO, to do whatever they want in these regards, as long as it doesn't hurt another human, or as long as they don't attempt to use their rights to abridge the same rights of others.

+1

 

[MKEgal]

Being a LEO, I ... [bunch of job-related training]

That's good. You were trained to do a job. I hope you do it well, including knowing the laws you're supposed to be enforcing & honoring your oath.
I'd expect a bus driver to be trained how to swing wide around corners, but I don't need to know how to do that 'cause I so rarely drive anything that requires that skill. [I've driven a m0tor h0me & a moving truck that were both approaching the size of a city bus.]
And I don't think I'll ever again try to clear a house. [Shouldn't have done it that time, but I was worred about the cats. Yes, I had my pistol in hand.]
The probability is that I will never have to even draw against a human being, but if I do, the probability is that I won't have to shoot him, but if I do the probability is that I'll have a higher hit ratio than you (as a representative LEO).

The problem is, without training, they are too great a danger to others and themselves.
... I would also suggest that most people that want to carry, should be checked out mentally in the same way they check for barred individuals (felons, spousal abuse, etc.) to see if there are any major attitude control problems that would cause these individuals to be too high a risk to the general public.

For the first part, show us the problems (in states with either Constitutional Carry, Constitutional OC, or no-training-required licenses to carry open or concealed) which could have been solved by training. By your way of thinking they should be myriad.
(BTW, I'm talking about citizens here. LEO infringement of rights happens even with training, & LEO shooting mistakes happen even with training, so obviously training doesn't prevent all problems. We've already had the examples of bad drivers & doctors who kill, even after training.)

For the second part, the bar for infringing someone's right to self-defense for that reason is pretty high. The disorder has to be severe enough that a judge, usually on the advice of several doctors, makes it public record that a person is not mentally competent.
With your idea about "attitude control problems" we are again facing the problem of "who decides"?
I think we can all agree that the Canton, OH officer had an attitude control problem.
Is it a problem if I flip someone off after they nearly hit me on my motorcycle?
Is it a problem if I vote for the wrong candidate?
Is it a problem if I stand up for my rights & don't allow a warrantless search?

And what exactly constitutes "too high a risk"? How do you measure it?
How do you measure someone's potential to do future harm?
There are no reliable, scientific tests.

You already accept some rules as to who should and shouldn't carry...
you could never have belonged to a hate group (whether you commited a crime on the hate group's behalf or not).

Cite, please? You are the first I've heard this idea.

its is considered animal cruelty to sacrifice a live animal

How do you think food animals become food instead of animals?
Hint: they're killed from alive to dead.
Kosher or Halal rules require humane, quick, painless slaughter, as do most other religious rites w/r/t animal sacrifice.

Commercial meat plants, at least in the US, don't. I understand some use electric shock to stun the animals before slitting their throats, some shoot a bolt into their brain. I have no idea if those actually prevent suffering, or just add a different sort.

[No, I'm not a vegan or vegetarian. But I've seen tapes of what happens inside slaughterhouses. Disgusting & disturbing as they were, especially the wanton cruelty, I watched because I should know what happens to my food. By eating it, I'm just as guilty as the ones causing the pain. When I can, I choose humanely raised & killed food.]

I think "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a damn good motto.

One Heinlein character pointed out that that's a really bad way to live.
What if I were into receiving vampirism or being suspended by piercings?
[Just to be abundantly clear here, I'm NOT.]
By your rule, it'd be OK to inflict those on you because I like them.
Try: do unto others as you think they want to be done to.

 

[Citizen]

What if I were into receiving vampirism or being suspended by piercings?
[Just to be abundantly clear here, I'm NOT.]

Too late. The picture was already made.

You can just change your username to VampireGal.




For some reason, I am reminded of a funny little Mark Twain anecdote.

Twain, later in life and more affluent, had gone fishing. On the way back, by train, he struck up a conversation with his seatmate. Twain explained that back in the baggage car he had a very large rock bass on ice (taken out of season). At this point his seatmate asked if Twain didn't know who he was. Twain didn't. The seatmate explained that he was the game warden for the area. Twain promptly introduced himself as the biggest liar in the area.

 

[Aknazer]

I'd also like to point out that you can have a right that require certain conditions to be followed:

Example, we have the right to free speech, however, if that speech incites others to riot or commit violence it is no longer a right

we have the right to protest, but we cannot impede public roadways due to safety concerns for police, fire, and EMTs; many places also require obtaining a permit for a gathering of people over a certain number.

we have the right to practice any religion we want as long as it doesn't harm or restrict others in their belief. examples of certain religious stipulations would be no polygamy, no live sacrifices, and no underage marriage

we have the right to vote, but in order to vote men must sign up for the draft, and everyone must register before a certain deadline in order to particpate in the election.


Rights are inalienable, but with rights come responsiblity...requiring training doesn't infringe a right, it ensures everyone practicing their right does so with a firm foundation for safety and proficiency

Your rights end where another's begin. As such in all of the examples that you have given the "restriction" comes from one person infringing/violating another person's rights. And while one "should" be responsible when exercising their rights, it's not a requirement. Though if you aren't being responsible then you are more likely to run afoul by violating someone elses rights as codified by law.

You already accept some rules as to who should and shouldn't carry. Examples would be age requirement of 21 or 18 years old depending on where you are. You can't be a felon, you could never have belonged to a hate group (whether you commited a crime on the hate group's behalf or not).

I think we all agree that 12 year olds should not be walking around with a gun on their hip...I just believe age doesn't make you a safe gun handler, knowledge and training does.

Who says that we "accept" those rules? The age requirement to me is only "acceptable" (though not something I agree with) if it is at age 18 as that is when one is no longer a minor and apparently the government can restrict the actions of minors (if the government can't Constitutionally restrict the actions of minors then even the 18 year restriction isn't acceptable). As for felons, once they have served their time they should have their rights restored. If they are too dangerous to have their rights restored then they shouldn't be released. So no, I don't agree with prior-felons not being able to own a gun. And please cite your "hate group" bit as when I got my CCW permit they never asked about that. I mean hell, even in the military I can be a member of a hate group (I just can't actively support them which is how the military would get you).

So no, I don't think everyone would agree that a 12 year old shouldn't have a gun on their hip. In the current world I wouldn't allow my kid to carry at age 12, but that is a decision to be made by the parents and can change based off of a variety of variables. And as a minor it is the parents who should pay for being irresponsible should the kid do something unlawful. But this requires parents to be actual parents and not shirk their duties to the government.

 

[sawah]

I expect all gun owners to have a baseline of proficiency with their firearm....otherwise buy a taser...just as effective, not as permanent if you make a mistake.

Here's where you are so wrong. "Training" does not guarantee any proficiency in a real self-defense situation. If a person is carrying a firearm, and due to their psychology, morals, situation never pull the firearm - did that come from specific state-mandated training? If a top-trained person, a competitive shooter pulls his firearm and chases bad guys and shoots at them five times and misses - did his obvious 'training' work? Obviously, his attitude was that he should chase a perpetrator and had nothing to do with any 'this is the trigger this is the safety, this is the barrel' training.

You just can't train people to come up to that standard of 'responsible and safe use' in a one to two day course. Lots of trained people have ND. Lots of old ladies carrying their husband's firearm in their purses never pulled it, never went to bad places, never shot anyone.

Also, in most states you can take a firearm home, never carry it, never wear it, never get any training, but can still pull it out of mothballs and shoot a burglar trying to enter your home...or -not- (see Castle Doctrine). The point is you're trying to 'regulate' something that is undefinable. Proficiency? How long do people train to learn how to punch someone using martial arts before they feel proficient? How long should someone take training with a weapon? How do you test to assure your 'training' worked, that they passed? With fake 'drills'?

Training doesn't work. Or it only works on some people who are already talented (to a degree). Thus your OP is based on a faulty premise or you have a hidden agenda - make it hard for people to do it and then less will try and you'll be the only one with a handgun.

By the way, what kind of training do you insist upon before letting someone carry a taser? Would you arrest a person who is open carrying a taser? Is it illegal?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

1. Police as dispatched to active shooters situation where private citizens can walk away

2. Police rarely have the element of surprise given the uniform

3. Police deal with the violent people of society more regularly than private citizens

4. Most private citizen shootings involve home protection from a defensive position with the homefront advantage

These are just a couple reasons...plenty more to choose from if that's not enough.

1. Not really police have no duty to serve and protect.
Plus they usually come in force if the situation is any sort of threat at all and secure the area, this should minimize the chances of collateral damage.
2. This point makes the statistics even worse, that even without the element of surprise a private civilian still has lower collateral damage.
3. In a controlled environment maybe like jails, one on one no you don't who do you think called the police to begin with? And what about all the times the police are not called at all?
4.Plenty of self defense situations out side the home still doesn't change the ratio.

You made a claim that private citizens do better at the range than LEO, there is a saying you are only as good as your training, if you can't hit the paper in a controlled environment you are not going to hit a person in an adrenaline pumped situation.

Last I checked, these weren't enumerated anywhere in our Constitution. IOW, they are not RIGHTS.

Enumeration of powers is what our government is supposed to have, our rights our not numbered even though they enumerated a few in the Bill of rights.

It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

James Madison

 

[SouthernBoy]

I'm not the one that posted the second amendment earlier...someone else did, I was simply pointing out what he posted....why not ask him?

I didn't post the Second Amendment's text. I posted the text from which the Second Amendment was drawn... Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution.

 

[donny]

Lmfao. So OP, are you learning anything? Other than there are a fair percentage of irrational people here?

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Lmfao. So OP, are you learning anything? Other than there are a fair percentage of irrational people here?

Irrational because we don't agree with statist government agents? Don't you have a bridge to crawl back under?

 

[rotorhead]

Some of the comments have pointed out the fact that requiring "mandatory" training "infringes" on a "right", and rightly so. The problem is, without training, they are too great a danger to others and themselves. So, while it shouldn't be mandatory, it HIGHLY ADVISABLE (as well as desireable) for some training.

Some of you may not like this, but I would also suggest that most people that want to carry, should be checked out mentally in the same way they check for barred individuals (felons, spousal abuse, etc.) to see if there are any major attitude control problems that would cause these individuals to be too high a risk to the general public.

Supposedly this is already accomplished during the buying process via the NCIS checks. If the NCIS check is not effective then it should be repealed and no more money should be wasted supporting it and keeping it alive.

Regardless, if the process is not effective, then there's a reason. Maybe it's on the part of the applicant. If an applicant is giving false information, then he or she should be punished. If the problem is on the other side, then the people that are failing on that side should be punished or replaced.

The program is already in place. There's no need to create more programs designed to fail, simply to use them as excuses to install further laws. That game is getting old.