CCW Class

outdoorsfan said:
I understand the general resistance to any further regulation or limitations placed on our 2nd Amendment rights as well as the ideas behind making the regulation of firearms a decision made on the state level. That being said, I am not for less personal responsibility and more regulation as much as some assurance that those who choose to utilize a firearm for self defense have a basic understanding of how to do that safely. I recognized that these classes do not provide that level of training (and perhaps, should not be expected to) but would everyone? If one doesn't, then yes, I would want them to be forced to take at least a basic course that covered safety, handling and marksmanship. I don't think it is necessary that every CCW holder achieves an advanced skill level but there should be some minimal requirements that include live fire with a minimum scoring level to be awarded the permit.

I am glad that Utah does issue to non-residents and did not mean to discredit the program. It was more of an observation about the process in general.
Click to expand...

I don't normally post on these types of threads because they tend to quickly degrade into a useless argument between a few posters, this one however doesn't seem to have reached that level (yet) and is a mostly civilized discussion.

You say that you're not for "Less Personal Responsibility" and, "More Regulation" but then you go on in detail about how people need to be forced to do this or that because they're not responsible enough to know for themselves the level of experience they need. It's almost funny to read the contradiction.

The point is that as an American Citizen we have the right to own (and in some states carry) a gun. We are not children that need to be "allowed" or gain permission to do things. Of course there is responsibility in choosing to own a gun, you open yourself up to liability, both civil and criminal, if you should misuse it. The purpose of government is not (or at least was not) to control the people, it's the other way around.

If someone misuses a gun, intentionally or criminally negligent, then they should suffer the consequences. If grandma wants to get a gun to keep in the nightstand then she should be able to without being certified as "proficient" by some government set standard. Yes, there really are stories of grandma, who's home has become the ghetto, shooting an intruder with her trusty 38 special that hasn't been fired in decades. It's not rocket surgery, it takes good common sense to handle a firearm properly, something that the general population has.

outdoorsman, you seem sincere enough in you criticism but our fundamental beliefs differ. By getting the out of state CCWs you are supporting a system that you disagree with. I suggest you cut up your out of state CCW applications and petition your own state to modify their laws to your liking.
 
I wish I could say I am surprised by some of the responses in this thread.

But I'm not.

Alarmed, disappointed, worried and saddened... yes. But I'm not surprised in the least.

We (speaking in general terms) are a nation of people who do not begin to understand the Constitution: we haven't bothered to read it, don't know what it says, don't comprehend the intent behind it, and we don't begin to understand its importance or how that document stands between us and a tyrannical government.

Original intent is everything. Without it our laws (even our supreme laws) are open to the interpretations of whomever it is that holds power. As such, those laws (including our supreme laws) become nothing more than words on a paper; words that can, and will, be used to justify the infringement of our freedoms.

I wish I had the ability to write in a manner that grabbed attention and forced the reader into an understanding of the danger within slippery slopes.

I don't. But others did, and they used their powers to warn future populations; cautioning them to remain vigilant, knowledgeable and active in stopping all attempts to infringe upon our rights.

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” Benjamin Franklin


"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." - Author Unknown


Any surprise that I might have had is found in the fact that the responses have been posted on a forum populated by knife lovers. I had thought that such a population would be far more hesitant to suggest governmental infringement (this is not the first time I've been wrong) as a possible solution to perceived problems.

My reasons for my thoughts (see paragraph above) can be boiled down to one theme: the exact same argument can (and will) be used to infringe upon your rights to own the knife of your choice.

That isn't a guess on my part - knives are frequently targeted as an excuse to infringe upon individual rights. It is already happening and it will continue to happen if we do not stand firm against infringements of any kind.

The arguments for infringement are, by design, predicated upon false premise piled upon false premise.

1. The tool is targeted.
2. Rights are dismissed as being old-fashioned and out of step with modern society.
3. Comparisons between rights and privileges are made and lines (between the two) are blurred.
4. All "discussion" is centered around examples of tool misuse.
5. A sense of security (false as it is) is introduced as the lone result if said infringement becomes a new normal.
6. All evidence/proof to the contrary of the false claims is immediately ignored.
7. Once the infringement becomes law and the false promises fail to materialize, the blame is always cast upon those who are unwilling to have their rights further infringed.
8. The attack on rights is renewed and the next target is selected.


I've read the history books: it never ends well for those infringed. I suppose that is part of the reason why I value my freedom.

I'm not against training. In fact I favor it very much and I highly encourage everyone to study the Constitution, the thoughts of the framers, and (most importantly) the thoughts expressed by the men who ratified the Constitution into our supreme law.

Hillsdale College offers a free course (on the Constitution) - I recommend it highly.

As for firearms and training: I'm completely in favor of everyone seeking additional training on their own accord. My disagreement starts the minute the government decides that my rights are dependant upon my willingness to meet the government's illegal demands. At that point those "rights" are nothing more than privileges that the government can take away whenever it deems such a move "necessary."

The Second Amendment is crystal clear: Shall Not Be Infringed.

The Tenth Amendment is even more clear: the federal government has no such power.

Be very thankful for that fact.

Keep it that way by doing your part: be informed (study the Constitution, the thoughts of the framers and the thoughts of the ratifiers) and watchful of all efforts to infringe upon your rights.

Your freedom depends upon it.
 
Tahts-a-dats-ago said:
The Tenth Amendment is even more clear: the federal government has no such power.
Click to expand...

There's a 10th amendment too?

I about jumped out of my chair when Mitt Romney mentioned the 10th amendment in one of the debates, it has become all but forgotten. In our world Federal trumps state, the states only have whatever power the federal government chooses to give them. In fact it is the opposite, states have the power... ...or did until the courts took it away.

The rest of your post was very good too, well written, I just had to comment on the 10th amendment.
 
Tahts-a-dats-ago. Thank you. You are more well spoken than I am. And more so than you give yourself credit for.
 
ElConquistador said:
There's a 10th amendment too?

I about jumped out of my chair when Mitt Romney mentioned the 10th amendment in one of the debates, it has become all but forgotten. In our world Federal trumps state, the states only have whatever power the federal government chooses to give them. In fact it is the opposite, states have the power... ...or did until the courts took it away.

The rest of your post was very good too, well written, I just had to comment on the 10th amendment.
Click to expand...



It is said that real comedy has an element of truth to it, and as you've astutely noted: our 10th Amendment has been thoroughly trashed (all while the public stood completely mute).

That is, in my opinion, shameful beyond description.

I do understand the fact that people are busy with their lives, earning a living and taking care of their family. But how is it that so many can completely ignore something that is so very important?

I don't get it.

Every year I am hopeful that the people will stand up and put a stop to this intrusion, and every year I am disappointed.

But...

It does my heart good to see that others do place value on their freedom, and I enjoyed reading your comments (they give me hope for our future).

I concur with your thoughts and hope that others do as well.
 
Chris Pierce said:
Tahts-a-dats-ago. Thank you. You are more well spoken than I am. And more so than you give yourself credit for.
Click to expand...

Thank you Chris.

I enjoyed reading your comments as well.

I am especially pleased to know that a younger man is taking up the fight for our freedoms. That is essential if freedom is to live in future generations.
 
Chris Pierce said:
Apology accepted :D

No I don't believe that we should allow something like the FOID to go federal. Owning and carrying firearms is a right that we all have. As responsible gun owners we should be definitely be supporting firearms education, but we can't force it on people.
You give 3 examples. I will argue against 2 of them them.
1. "You need a license to drive a car." Yes, and driving a car is not a God given right or a Constitutional protected one. Also, look at how many people are driving unregistered cars with out legal driving licenses. I knew many back when I worked in the shipyards.
2. "You need a license to preform an operation as a doctor." Yes, and besides not being a Constitutionally protected right, it's also a good idea because you are selling your services to another person. I think it makes sense for businesses to be certified and inspected. It's also important for society to have an emergency response system in place, and we need to have people who are trained and qualified in place. I agree with qualifying doctors.
3. "You need a license to design a buildings electrical system." No, actually you need a license to SELL your design. If it's your house you should be responsible enough to fix it or build it. If you're not then you can at least be responsible enough to find someone who is. If you are selling the design, then yes it makes sense to me for the engineer to be certified and licensed.

All of these licenses and certifications only provided avenues for us to lose our personal responsibility.

I do have an honest question for you. What do you think that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution means? I know some folks who think of it as a suggestion, and some folks who think that we should be able to own nuclear weapons or scud missiles. I don't want to make any assumptions about what you believe.
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make with the professional licenses is that, at some level, there is regulation and that regulation many times has requirements that relate to education and/or testing. The PE or MD are paid for their services (which is an important point) but those professionals have complied with the requirements for licensing. While it may not be exactly comparable to the CCW, I think it there is some similarity as all could impact safety.

I would say my personal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be that as citizens, we have to right to keep arms for our personal use. I do not believe this was meant to apply to any and all weapons (such as a SCUD). I believe that firearms should not be "classified by type" as in this is a "sporting gun" or defined as having no "sporting purpose". I also believe that it is acceptable to restrict certain firearms in a limited way and require increasing levels of licensing, such as with fully auto weapons, as long as those weapons are realistically available to those who choose to posess them. I am not sure exactly where this puts me on the 2nd Amendment scale, but I would guess somewhere in the middle of the two.
 
Do you believe that we should continue to illegally infringing on our Civil Liberties? Or do you believe that we should attempt to amend the constitution to negate our 2nd amendment? Those are the two options.
 
Chris Pierce said:
Do you believe that we should continue to illegally infringing on our Civil Liberties? Or do you believe that we should attempt to amend the constitution to negate our 2nd amendment? Those are the two options.
Click to expand...

My comments were about an existing process that I feel could be changed for the better and aid the common good by reducing the potential for accidental deaths and injuries. I think the one way or the other decision you pose would be better put to should there be a CCW permit requirement at all or should the entire country be considered "constitutional carry" and all citizens be allowed to carry concealed weapons if they so choose.
 
The current system is illegal. I think that we need to throw it out and go with what's legal. And if that's not acceptable to the anti-gun group then they should go about Legally trying to change the law.
Responsibly carrying a gun will not hurt anyone. So I don't see how someone could justifiably or rationally argue against allowing it.
 
ElConquistador said:
I don't normally post on these types of threads because they tend to quickly degrade into a useless argument between a few posters, this one however doesn't seem to have reached that level (yet) and is a mostly civilized discussion.

You say that you're not for "Less Personal Responsibility" and, "More Regulation" but then you go on in detail about how people need to be forced to do this or that because they're not responsible enough to know for themselves the level of experience they need. It's almost funny to read the contradiction.

The point is that as an American Citizen we have the right to own (and in some states carry) a gun. We are not children that need to be "allowed" or gain permission to do things. Of course there is responsibility in choosing to own a gun, you open yourself up to liability, both civil and criminal, if you should misuse it. The purpose of government is not (or at least was not) to control the people, it's the other way around.

If someone misuses a gun, intentionally or criminally negligent, then they should suffer the consequences. If grandma wants to get a gun to keep in the nightstand then she should be able to without being certified as "proficient" by some government set standard. Yes, there really are stories of grandma, who's home has become the ghetto, shooting an intruder with her trusty 38 special that hasn't been fired in decades. It's not rocket surgery, it takes good common sense to handle a firearm properly, something that the general population has.

outdoorsman, you seem sincere enough in you criticism but our fundamental beliefs differ. By getting the out of state CCWs you are supporting a system that you disagree with. I suggest you cut up your out of state CCW applications and petition your own state to modify their laws to your liking.
Click to expand...

I think that this is both a civilized and interesting discussion. Opposing views, and the respect thereof, is what democracy is all about! :)

As I said, I do support personal responsibility and all that I am suggesting is that within the construct of the current realities of our system of laws, if there is a requirement for gaining a "permit" to allow for the carry of concealed weapons, in my opinion that requirement should include a demonstration of ability to safely use a firearm. If everyone in general is fairly responsible and safe, why not demonstrate that ability?

God bless the old Grandma's with Pa's .38 in the nightstand but Grandma doesn't have the .38 in her purse when she goes to the store (at least in your example but I am also not saying she shouldn't be able to have it in her purse if she knows how to use it!).

The only system I have an issue with is my own state's. While I will continue to support the modification of my own state's laws, I have really no other legal way to exercise my rights than to seek a permit through another state. Criticism of what is involved in that process is not condemnation of the system as a whole.

Perhaps the FOID system we have here is not a good idea. Really all it involves is a check of your criminal history by the State Police and is similar to the requirement for a federal background check.
 
Chris Pierce said:
The current system is illegal. I think that we need to throw it out and go with what's legal. And if that's not acceptable to the anti-gun group then they should go about Legally trying to change the law.
Responsibly carrying a gun will not hurt anyone. So I don't see how someone could justifiably or rationally argue against allowing it.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that responsible carry of a gun will not hurt anyone but should the only assurance of responsibility be the consequences for misuse?
 
One of the fundamental tenants of out society is that you are innocent until proven guilty. I'd say that for criminals who want to carry a pistol, maybe there should be a permit class back ground check etc etc. For your average citizen, it only makes sense to trust and assume that they are innocent (until proven otherwise) and not infringe on their Civil Liberties.
Ban shooting people, not carrying firearms.
Under your rational you would have us banning cars because of car wrecks. Do you see that?
 
Chris Pierce said:
One of the fundamental tenants of out society is that you are innocent until proven guilty. I'd say that for criminals who want to carry a pistol, maybe there should be a permit class back ground check etc etc. For your average citizen, it only makes sense to trust and assume that they are innocent (until proven otherwise) and not infringe on their Civil Liberties.
Ban shooting people, not carrying firearms.
Under your rational you would have us banning cars because of car wrecks. Do you see that?
Click to expand...

Again I have to say that I completely agree with the basic concept, innocent until proven guilty in this case. I think though that I wouldn't ban cars because of car wrecks, I would support a Driver's License requirement. There are dangers associated with firearms and there are many cases of very experienced users being injured or killed accidentally. I do not think that this means that we should ban their use.

I would also say that, perhaps, some of my attitude comes from the fact that I grew up with fairly restrictive gun laws as a reality. If you want to legally own and use firearms in my state, you have to comply with the FOID program and other limitations. Maybe I should reconsider my views, looking through more of a constitutional lens, but I still feel that the classes I attended could be improved.
 
Tahts

Rather than quoting your posts, I just wanted to say that they were very well written and I understand your point. The terror attacks brought a level of infringement on our civil liberties that has left many of our rights as a mere shell of what they should be using exactly the excuses you point out to do so. Our privacy is no longer private, along with so many other things handed over in the name of security.

As I have said though, my comments were really in regards to improving an existing legal process, not whether or not the process should even exist. You all have made very valid points as to why I should have been enjoying an afternoon of shooting at the range, exercising my constitutional right to own and carry a firearm, instead of sitting in a class that did not help me to better use my weapon.
 
Ok I see. In my opinion I think that doing away with the (unconstitutional and illegal) FIOD program and required CCW classes is what we should do to better the program. We should also support programs that give some sort of incentives for firearms training courses. A tax break perhaps :D
 
Chris Pierce said:
Ok I see. In my opinion I think that doing away with the (unconstitutional and illegal) FIOD program and required CCW classes is what we should do to better the program. We should also support programs that give some sort of incentives for firearms training courses. A tax break perhaps :D
Click to expand...

Man I hate the FOID - Illinois is the only state that infringes on our right in this way (as far as I am aware).

I am hoping the recent Illinois ruling that the state ban on CCW is truly repealed / eliminated.

It is my fear that we will be financially constrained - excessive annual fees for the "right" - I am with you, truly!

best

mqqn
 
I re-read this, especially what tahts wrote, after what happened this morning in my state. A ban on (from what I read) all semi-automatic firearms has passed our Senate committee and now has the chance to become a law in this state. In addition, the law would ban all magazines over 10 rnd capacity and force you to register every semi-auto you currently possess.

I was taught to handle firearms safely. I have kept loaded weapons safely for decades but I have also seen some very close calls on the range and in the field. I truly believe that anyone who chooses to own a firearm should learn to use it with the utmost of safety but, especially considering what I was greeted with in the morning news, vividly understand the slippery slope that any restrictions lead to.

What is before us in this state is an extreme and almost ludicrous infringement but how can we ensure safe enjoyment of this right?

Maybe I looked at these classes wrong. I learned more about driving from my Dad, who drove an ambulance, than I did from the state mandated Drivers Ed program. This is pretty much the same thing.

Chris' suggestion that gun safety, I think in the sense of safe use, be part of everyone's education may be the right approach. If we are a "gun culture" shouldn't we be a safe one?

One of the things Pops taught me was to watch the car in front of the one in front of me. That has helped me to avoid more accidents than any other driving tip I've heard. That same kind of experience and wisdom should be passed on to future generations about many things, guns included.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top