Man accidentally shoots self in buttocks when gun falls out of pocket at Nevada movie

[peterb]

Oy vey...

http://news.yahoo.com/man-accidentally-shoots-self-buttocks-gun-falls-pocket-082826134.html?_esi=1

SPARKS, Nev. - Police say a man accidentally shot himself in the buttocks at a Nevada movie theatre during a showing of "The Bourne Legacy."

Police in Sparks, Nev., say the 56-year-old man's injuries are not life-threatening and no others were hurt.

Authorities say the man had a permit to carry a concealed firearm. The man told officers the gun fell from his pocket Tuesday night as he was adjusting himself in the seat and that it discharged when it dropped to the floor.

Authorities say the case will be sent to the city attorney for possible charges.

The incident comes less than a month after a shooting at a suburban Denver theatre that left 12 dead and 58 injured.

[BaiHu]

All of these "accidental discharges" seem odd. You either a) don't have a quality/reputable gun, b) have modified your gun, c) you have 'adjusted' your gun with your booger hook fondling the bang switch or d) tried to grab your gravity gripped gun.

I'm guessing c or d are the most likely culprits, no?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[Sparks2112]

Does anyone else feel bad wishing that some people would just NOT carry. The public opinion is never formed from those of us who do things correctly it seems. :(

[bdcheung]

Ever since I got my concealed carry permit, I've been in favor of competency tests as a requirement in the permitting process.

It's easy enough for me to avoid stupid if he's openly carrying, but if you're carrying concealed and you're an idiot, you could pose a threat to those around you. And they would be totally ignorant of it. Which is not good.

It's all about externalities!

[LOKNLOD]

Fact is, right now if you so much as fart loudly in a movie theater it's going to get attention, and if it comes out that you are carrying, it's going to make big news because it is in the spotlight and there is a big contingent eager for any opportunity to indict anyone and anything associated with legal concealed carry and self defense. They don't like that Aurora makes a good case for responsible adults being legally armed and having an opportunity to stop such an event (more so than some other high profile active shooters, because this one wasn't at a school, which complicates the carry issue in many minds). Every negative example will be utilized to the fullest -- "See, all these people carrying guns are just making things worse!"

[ToddG]

Ever since I got my concealed carry permit, I've been in favor of competency tests as a requirement in the permitting process.


Should we also have a competency test before people are allowed to speak in public? Assemble? Choose their own method of worship? You're talking about a Constitutional right.
People have to pass a competency test to drive a car. How many times a day do you spot someone on the road driving dangerously?


I'm as firm a believer in training as you'll find. I think it's utterly irresponsible for someone to carry a gun without achieving at least basic competency and understanding of what he can (and can't) achieve with a gun in his hand. But unless you can show me where the hordes of untrained CCWers are wreaking havoc in the streets then I don't see the need to curtail anyone's natural right to self-defense.

BTW, the NV CCW process does include competency testing. This guy apparently passed and still had his accident. See point #2 re: operating automobiles, above.

[bdcheung]

Should we also have a competency test before people are allowed to speak in public? Assemble? Choose their own method of worship? You're talking about a Constitutional right.
People have to pass a competency test to drive a car. How many times a day do you spot someone on the road driving dangerously?


I'm as firm a believer in training as you'll find. I think it's utterly irresponsible for someone to carry a gun without achieving at least basic competency and understanding of what he can (and can't) achieve with a gun in his hand. But unless you can show me where the hordes of untrained CCWers are wreaking havoc in the streets then I don't see the need to curtail anyone's natural right to self-defense.

BTW, the NV CCW process does include competency testing. This guy apparently passed and still had his accident. See point #2 re: operating automobiles, above.

The Constitution guarantees and preserves the right of the people to bear arms, not to hide them. To my knowledge, no court has found that the 2A guarantees the right to concealed carry. Some of our rights have externalities; speaking is not one of those. There's no potential for causing serious bodily harm if you are negligent with your mouth. There's no risk of injuring someone in public if you peaceably assemble. Such is not the case with firearms.

We don't have a competency test before people purchase a firearm because that is the Constitutional right. I want to take a moment to clarify that I do not support competency tests for the purchasing or ownership of a firearm, or for an individual to carry openly; merely for the permitting of an individual to carry concealed. Carrying the gun concealed in a public space is not a Constitutional right. It's a privilege, just like driving (as you pointed out).

Does the DMV driving test mean that everyone on the road is a perfect driver? No, but it does mean that everyone on the road who is licensed in your state has a baseline level of competency. I'm not saying that level is particularly high, but there's some bar they have to meet. Does that mean accidents don't happen? Nope. But that's why they're called accidents, and not intentionals.

But, again as far as I know, every state requires licensed drivers to carry a minimum level of insurance because cars are dangerous and accidents happen, sometimes with fatal results. You're not likely to be involved in an accident with your firearm that could kill 13 people; as such, I don't feel that "CCP Insurance" should be mandated. Further, you aren't likely to cause significant amounts of property damage in an accident with a firearm.

But an idiot with a gun, like this guy who had an ND in a movie theater, is dangerous. And when that gun is concealed, the general public has no way of being aware of that danger and, subsequently, no way of avoiding it. I can change lanes or slow down to get away from the teenager who is texting and driving, because I can see the threat. To bring this analogy full circle, you'd have to ask yourself what the consequences would be of people driving stealth cars.

[ToddG]

The Constitution guarantees and preserves the right of the people to bear arms, not to hide them.

According to whom? There are quite a few major court cases right now aimed at determining that very point.

Furthermore, in many jurisdictions it's illegal or otherwise impractical to carry openly. So the choice falls down to carry concealed or don't carry. You're right back to denying people their fundamental natural right to self-defense.


But an idiot with a gun, like this guy who had an ND in a movie theater, is dangerous. And when that gun is concealed, the general public has no way of being aware of that danger and, subsequently, no way of avoiding it. I can change lanes or slow down to get away from the teenager who is texting and driving, because I can see the threat. To bring this analogy full circle, you'd have to ask yourself what the consequences would be of people driving stealth cars.

Your driving analogy points out exactly why it wouldn't work. When you drive are you paying attention to the road or checking which drivers around you are teenagers who may be texting? You're not going to know someone is a danger until he does something dangerous.

Neither will you be able to tell at a glance which Open Carry people are competent and which are not. It's fantasy to pretend that your "bad gun handler radar" would be adequate to warn you about the guy seven rows back in the movie theater who is fiddling with his handgun. So again, until they do something dangerous, you're in the dark. Just like you're not going to avoid any road with an unidentified driver on it, you're not going to avoid every public space where some unidentified person is carrying openly. That makes the distinction between open and concealed a non-issue.

[bdcheung]

According to whom? There are quite a few major court cases right now aimed at determining that very point.

Until a higher court overturns the ruling, according to the 9th Circuit Eastern District Court, through its opinion in Adam Richards v. County of Yolo:

However, as the Supreme Court of the United States recently clarified in a landmark case, the “right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...Under the statutory scheme, even if Plaintiffs are denied a concealed weapon license for self-defense purposes from Yolo County, they are still more than free to keep an unloaded weapon nearby their person, load it, and use it for self-defense in circumstances that may occur in a public setting. Yolo County’s policy does not substantially burden Plaintiffs’ right to bear and keep arms. Therefore, rational basis review applies.

Also see Kachalsky v. Cacace, in which a district court also ruled (and was later affirmed) that concealed carry is not a constitutional right.

I'm not saying I agree with these opinions, but until they are overturned, it's the law of the land.


Furthermore, in many jurisdictions it's illegal or otherwise impractical to carry openly. So the choice falls down to carry concealed or don't carry. You're right back to denying people their fundamental natural right to self-defense.

I don't see how that is material to our current discussion. The overwhelming majority of states already place burdens onto individuals desiring to carry concealed; the choice of "carry concealed or don't carry" is an existing reality that would be unaltered by the addition of a competency requirement to the permitting process.


Your driving analogy points out exactly why it wouldn't work. When you drive are you paying attention to the road or checking which drivers around you are teenagers who may be texting? You're not going to know someone is a danger until he does something dangerous.

I drive with my head on a swivel. I look at the road ahead of me, the rear-view mirror, and both side mirrors, on a rotating basis. Which allows me to get a pretty good look at the drivers around me. Experience has shown me that the Beltway (and the DC metro area in general) is no place for tunnel vision.

Most people here do the same in their daily lives. We call it "situational awareness" and have a checklist of behavioral or physical characteristics that flag someone as "not right" in our eyes. We don't wait for someone to do something dangerous before taking actions to avoid danger. You see a guy walking towards you who doesn't look right; do you wait for him to do something dangerous, or take the initiative to put time and distance between the two of you?


Neither will you be able to tell at a glance which Open Carry people are competent and which are not. It's fantasy to pretend that your "bad gun handler radar" would be adequate to warn you about the guy seven rows back in the movie theater who is fiddling with his handgun. So again, until they do something dangerous, you're in the dark. Just like you're not going to avoid any road with an unidentified driver on it, you're not going to avoid every public space where some unidentified person is carrying openly. That makes the distinction between open and concealed a non-issue.

I judge people by their appearance, books by their cover, and restaurant food by the pictures in the menu. When someone is openly carrying, I at least have the ability to say, "I don't know anything about you, but you don't look right to me and I'm going to go over here now, away from you." It's not an absolutely accurate assessment of the individual's character or ability to handle a gun--it's a matter of choice. As in, I have the choice.

Again, I'd like to refocus my argument to the fact that carrying a loaded gun in a public space presents externalities , which is the sole basis upon which I make the argument that reasonable standards of competency are both not unconstitutional and should be considered.

[ToddG]

Until a higher court overturns the ruling, according to the 9th Circuit Eastern District Court, through its opinion in Adam Richards v. County of Yolo:
Also see Kachalsky v. Cacace, in which a district court also ruled (and was later affirmed) that concealed carry is not a constitutional right.
I'm not saying I agree with these opinions, but until they are overturned, it's the law of the land.

No, they're not. That isn't how District Court decisions work. They're not controlling over other Circuits.


I don't see how that is material to our current discussion. The overwhelming majority of states already place burdens onto individuals desiring to carry concealed; the choice of "carry concealed or don't carry" is an existing reality that would be unaltered by the addition of a competency requirement to the permitting process.

The fact that plenty of states do it doesn't mean it's Constitutional. DC & Chicago didn't allow ownership of handguns...


I drive with my head on a swivel. I look at the road ahead of me, the rear-view mirror, and both side mirrors, on a rotating basis. Which allows me to get a pretty good look at the drivers around me. Experience has shown me that the Beltway (and the DC metro area in general) is no place for tunnel vision.

I've been driving on the DC Beltway since I got my learner's permit at 15. There's absolutely no way you can be examining the behavior of all the drivers around you, what they have in their hands, etc., and still be "head on a swivel" watching the road, cars, etc. Sure, sometimes you'll see someone do something stupid and your eyes flip to the passenger compartment where you'll see them texting, but that's after the fact.


Most people here do the same in their daily lives. We call it "situational awareness" and have a checklist of behavioral or physical characteristics that flag someone as "not right" in our eyes. We don't wait for someone to do something dangerous before taking actions to avoid danger. You see a guy walking towards you who doesn't look right; do you wait for him to do something dangerous, or take the initiative to put time and distance between the two of you?

That's a strawman. We're not talking about "a guy who doesn't look right." We're talking about Joe Blow with a gun in an exposed holster.


I judge people by their appearance, books by their cover, and restaurant food by the pictures in the menu. When someone is openly carrying, I at least have the ability to say, "I don't know anything about you, but you don't look right to me and I'm going to go over here now, away from you."

I've personally witnessed you standing around people you don't know who were openly carrying guns in an environment where you knew they would be handling those guns. So clearly it's not the open carry that causes you concern. You apparently think you can guarantee your safety based on perfect awareness. More power to you...


Again, I'd like to refocus my argument to the fact that carrying a loaded gun in a public space presents externalities , which is the sole basis upon which I make the argument that reasonable standards of competency are both not unconstitutional and should be considered.

Carrying a Leatherman in public presents externalities, too, because it's got sharp pointy metal parts that could hurt someone. Do you advocate licensing and testing for the public concealed possession of Leathermen (-mans, whatever)? So does walking a dog. Should people -- or dogs -- be required to get minimum competency testing before taking their pets in public? How about cooking food for people? I know restaurants need to be approved by the state but do individual chefs and cooks? They can certainly pose a substantial risk to others if they're not competent.

The argument that "what you're doing has the potential, if you are an idiot, to cause me harm" is a frictionless slope leading straight to the ultra nanny state. And as I already pointed out, the guy in question here did have state-mandated training and did pass state-mandated proficiency standards. So what good did those do, again?

[Zhurdan]

Idiots will still be idiots, regardless of if they are carrying a gun or not and since you can't legislate idiocy out of existence... well, don't try to do so.

There could be a way to "strongly recommend" competency training without infringing on rights though, you'd think.

What about a simple addition of if you do not get certified competency training, you have to carry insurance? (for the record, I don't like any of it and think people should be responsible for themselves, but like I said... idiots will still be idiots. It just might cut down on the amount of idiots) ;-)

[ToddG]

Along similar lines, given that reasonable time place manner restrictions are usually acceptable under Constitutional scrutiny, I might be amenable to a system where there are more limits (e.g., no carrying in bars) for people who have a Class-B No Training CCW that wouldn't apply to people with Class A Trained CCW.

The trick is figuring out what suffices as training & qualification...

[bdcheung]

No, they're not. That isn't how District Court decisions work. They're not controlling over other Circuits.
That's true, they aren't binding on other circuits--something I had neglected to remember. I'll retract my "law of the land" comment.


The fact that plenty of states do it doesn't mean it's Constitutional. DC & Chicago didn't allow ownership of handguns...
I'm pointing out that it hasn't been shown as unconstitutional. ETA: Yet.


I've been driving on the DC Beltway since I got my learner's permit at 15. There's absolutely no way you can be examining the behavior of all the drivers around you, what they have in their hands, etc., and still be "head on a swivel" watching the road, cars, etc. Sure, sometimes you'll see someone do something stupid and your eyes flip to the passenger compartment where you'll see them texting, but that's after the fact.
I agree, there's no way you can be 100% aware of everything going on. But there are gradations between 100% awareness and 0% awareness.


That's a strawman. We're not talking about "a guy who doesn't look right." We're talking about Joe Blow with a gun in an exposed holster.
I've walked away from public ranges (Clark Brothers) when someone who looks like an idiot shows up. I'm not claiming to have perfect awareness, and what I do invariably means I'm more on edge and sensitive than others might be. But when I know Joe Blow has access to a gun, I have the choice to avoid him.


I've personally witnessed you standing around people you don't know who were openly carrying guns in an environment where you knew they would be handling those guns. So clearly it's not the open carry that causes you concern. You apparently think you can guarantee your safety based on perfect awareness. More power to you...
Open carry isn't the issue. Open carry provides the public with the knowledge that this individual has access to a firearm and they can react accordingly. Concealed carry limits the information available.


Carrying a Leatherman in public presents externalities, too, because it's got sharp pointy metal parts that could hurt someone. Do you advocate licensing and testing for the public concealed possession of Leathermen (-mans, whatever)? So does walking a dog. Should people -- or dogs -- be required to get minimum competency testing before taking their pets in public? How about cooking food for people? I know restaurants need to be approved by the state but do individual chefs and cooks? They can certainly pose a substantial risk to others if they're not competent.
We could discuss hypothetical situations ad nauseum, so I'll try to answer your question with my general beliefs and principles rather than situation-by-situation minutiae. Firearms and motor vehicles exceed my personal threshold for ease and degree of damage caused. It's easy to cause a lot of damage with either. Knives and pointy sticks fall below the threshold. You can't stand more than 4 feet away from someone and easily cause significant damage with either. Yes, there will be those who can throw a Leatherman with excellent accuracy and precision, but we legislate for the majority.

Dogs and restaurants, again, fall into the same bucket as open carry: I can see your dog. I can avoid you and your dog if I so desire. I can see the food. I can smell the food. I can choose not to eat if if I so desire.


The argument that "what you're doing has the potential, if you are an idiot, to cause me harm" is a frictionless slope leading straight to the ultra nanny state.
It's also not my argument. But I see that I failed, in my quoted text, to accurately summarize it. 'my bad.

My argument, again, is that if you are carrying concealed, the public doesn't have the ability or knowledge to avoid you. Therefore, I support reasonable proficiency requirements as a small step toward minimizing the externalities inherent in carrying a gun.


And as I already pointed out, the guy in question here did have state-mandated training and did pass state-mandated proficiency standards. So what good did those do, again?
I don't know. I don't have a crystal ball. I can't tell you what the situation would have been like had he not received state mandated training.

------Deep breath------

What this boils down to is that you can't legislate stupid. I am torn in that:

I feel that concealed carry *should* be a Constitutional right
I don't want idiots who can't handle a firearm carrying concealed and potentially shooting me, my wife, or my child, by accident, through a justified self-defense situation.


Is any mandated training program or competency exam perfect? No. Absolutely not.

Should there be burdens to exercising your right to bear arms? I don't believe so.

Are there idiots out there who are down right scary with a gun? Yeah. I don't know of anyone on this forum who would argue otherwise.

I don't want to put further restrictions on our right to carry, but I don't have faith that, should concealed carry become a constitutional right, the majority of people who would shove a gun in their pocket would abide by the social contract and be responsible.

I just don't have that much faith in my fellow Americans.

So I'm left with compromising with myself and saying we should make sure people who carry concealed have a baseline level of competency. Because if I can see your gun, I can avoid you. If I can't, I can't.

[bdcheung]

Along similar lines, given that reasonable time place manner restrictions are usually acceptable under Constitutional scrutiny, I might be amenable to a system where there are more limits (e.g., no carrying in bars) for people who have a Class-B No Training CCW that wouldn't apply to people with Class A Trained CCW.

The trick is figuring out what suffices as training & qualification...

I like this idea.

and I think there's something to be learned from the way most state DMV's handle driver testing. (ETA: in the sense that DMV is a standard that can be improved; NOT that DMV driving tests are a model of success)

What do we test when licensing someone to operate a motor vehicle on public roads?

Why do we test those skills?

[Zhurdan]

Along similar lines, given that reasonable time place manner restrictions are usually acceptable under Constitutional scrutiny, I might be amenable to a system where there are more limits (e.g., no carrying in bars) for people who have a Class-B No Training CCW that wouldn't apply to people with Class A Trained CCW.

The trick is figuring out what suffices as training & qualification...

I like this as well, but it brings out the Devils Advocate in me a bit.

Would this ultimately lead to "us" being our own worst enemies? The first time a Class A Trained person decided that normalcy wasn't his "gig" anymore, they'd flail us into submission with the fact that he was "trained". A fine edge that razor has.

[fuse]

me reading this thread

http://dubbac.com/main/GIFs/watching.gif

solid discussion gents

[GJM]

Ever since I got my concealed carry permit, I've been in favor of competency tests as a requirement in the permitting process.

Attempting to regulate competency is a very slippery slope. Shouldn't we be instead be focused on outcomes, as in you screw up and are held accountable for your behavior?

[bdcheung]

Attempting to regulate competency is a very slippery slope. Shouldn't we be instead be focused on outcomes, as in you screw up and are held accountable for your behavior?

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

My idea of competency is not GM-level skill.

It's not fully baked, so I don't want to put into writing ideas that may change, but I think there should be some baseline level of competence that a permit holder is going to be reasonably proficient with some basic skills.

[BaiHu]

In the end, as IANAL and I am not a GM, we don't need to add laws, we need to enforce them. We don't need to try to stop idiocy, we need to shame idiocy so that we have less idiocy. We don't need to hide or regulate reality, we need to be responsible and embrace reality. Something this world has increasingly lost since we've had the technology to kill people from afar and helicopter parents. If you want me to elucidate on the last sentence, then just say so.

[GJM]

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

My idea of competency is not GM-level skill.

It's not fully baked, so I don't want to put into writing ideas that may change, but I think there should be some baseline level of competence that a permit holder is going to be reasonably proficient with some basic skills.

First, government has a very poor track record of legislating rules that result in competency. If you question that, consider the range of proficiency in private pilots. In this group, which has to pass a check ride with the FAA, or FAA designated examiner, the delta between worst and best is mind boggling.

Second, consider the example of people in Alaska, carrying firearms open and concealed, for defense against bears. Most have very low proficiency, yet when the bear charges, I can't imagine a single person not wishing to have a firearm to give them a better chance in surviving an encounter.

Third, many years ago, before laws restricted this, I helped a woman that was receiving serious death threats by giving her a J frame minutes after she called me. While she later became an IPSC shooter, at the time she was receiving the threats, she had virtually no skill beyond loading the revolver, and a few minutes of instruction. You really want government involved in regulating when she could carry?

Fourth, of all people, I have had to recently listen to Bill O'Reilly opine how government should regulate "heavy equipment " such as an AR-15, and ammo purchases beyond a few rounds. Really want government defining competency and setting rules about "reasonable" carry practices?

Nope, hold people accountable for outcomes.

[JFK]

The opening of competency testing to constitutional rights would be the same as means testing constitutional rights.

The end result is a politicization of a black and white issue. Is is a right or is it not.

The inevitable outcome will be you have this right because you fit group A, you do not have this right because you fit group B. I can see legislation when we have people not 2a friendly making "competency" 300 hours of super mall ninja school. Making it only for the supper connected and out of reach for a normal person. Thus negating the right.

[SecondsCount]

First, government has a very poor track record of legislating rules that result in competency. If you question that, consider the range of proficiency in private pilots. In this group, which has to pass a check ride with the FAA, or FAA designated examiner, the delta between worst and best is mind boggling.

Second, consider the example of people in Alaska, carrying firearms open and concealed, for defense against bears. Most have very low proficiency, yet when the bear charges, I can't imagine a single person not wishing to have a firearm to give them a better chance in surviving an encounter.

Third, many years ago, before laws restricted this, I helped a woman that was receiving serious death threats by giving her a J frame minutes after she called me. While she later became an IPSC shooter, at the time she was receiving the threats, she had virtually no skill beyond loading the revolver, and a few minutes of instruction. You really want government involved in regulating when she could carry?

Fourth, of all people, I have had to recently listen to Bill O'Reilly opine how government should regulate "heavy equipment " such as an AR-15, and ammo purchases beyond a few rounds. Really want government defining competency and setting rules about "reasonable" carry practices?

Nope, hold people accountable for outcomes.

Agreed.

What you have to ask yourself is, will more regulations make the situation better?

I doubt it. Things like this (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765590523/2-year-old-dies-after-shooting-self-in-head.html?pg=all) would still happen.

Education is the key. Here in Utah there is no shooting requirement to get a carry permit but there is a class requirement so that you know the laws and limitations.

[cclaxton]

Should we also have a competency test before people are allowed to speak in public? Assemble? Choose their own method of worship? You're talking about a Constitutional right.
People have to pass a competency test to drive a car. How many times a day do you spot someone on the road driving dangerously?


I'm as firm a believer in training as you'll find. I think it's utterly irresponsible for someone to carry a gun without achieving at least basic competency and understanding of what he can (and can't) achieve with a gun in his hand. But unless you can show me where the hordes of untrained CCWers are wreaking havoc in the streets then I don't see the need to curtail anyone's natural right to self-defense.

BTW, the NV CCW process does include competency testing. This guy apparently passed and still had his accident. See point #2 re: operating automobiles, above.

So does that mean we shouldn't teach Drivers Ed in schools or require a competency exam for driving a car or riding a motorcycle? It seems to me that requiring training and competency ensures less of us will have accidents, as a population of drivers.....or concealed carriers for that matter.

THe only argument I have heard that convinces me not to require training and competency is that it unfairly burdens the poor and the disabled which would make it discriminatory.

CC

[BaiHu]

So does that mean we shouldn't teach Drivers Ed in schools or require a competency exam for driving a car or riding a motorcycle? It seems to me that requiring training and competency ensures less of us will have accidents, as a population of drivers.....or concealed carriers for that matter.

THe only argument I have heard that convinces me not to require training and competency is that it unfairly burdens the poor and the disabled which would make it discriminatory.

CC

I believe that is the answer to the question. Once you descriminate the tiniest bit, it is no longer a right.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[bdcheung]

Until constitutional concealed carry is a reality, all the arguments that say "proficiency requirements for a concealed carry permit hinder a constitutional right" are based on false premises. We're talking about core competencies as part of the permitting process, NOT the purchase or open carry of firearms (where allowed).

RE: the FAA example. I am 16 hours towards a SPL. Ask yourself: would you let just anyone on the street fly? Ignoring all of the intricacies of policies, airspace, CTAF, and just look at the core function of flying an airplane over populated areas. Would you be comfortable knowing Joe Blow could just get into something like a Cessna 172 and flying around? I wouldn't. Because he likely doesn't know what he is doing and could unintentionally kill someone.

When constitutional carry becomes a reality, this whole discussion will change, but for the time being, your 2A rights don't extend to carrying a concealed weapon in the public space.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JAD]

, your 2A rights don't extend to carrying a concealed weapon in the public space.
-- They do, and have, whether the government recognized or infringed my rights at the time. I have a CCW for convenience (the convenience of not getting arrested), not because it's the right thing to do. This whole argument is one I've had with a number of conservatives who haven't been mugged yet -- people tend to think that /they/ have rights, but that other people are too dumb to have rights unless proven otherwise. Everybody -- and I mean felons, minors, preverts, orangutans named Clyde, women, foreigners, even those foreigners, well maybe not those foreigners -- has a right to be armed in any way they choose in any public space or private space under their control. The government can restrict that right, just as it restricts other rights that minors and felons and others have -- but it can only restrict through regulation, and regulation is inherently so badly used by the government that it is unconscionable to permit a single additional regulation to be added to the /ridiculous/ pile with which our society is currently being crushed into pea gravel.

[bdcheung]

-- They do, and have, whether the government recognized or infringed my rights at the time. I have a CCW for convenience (the convenience of not getting arrested), not because it's the right thing to do. This whole argument is one I've had with a number of conservatives who haven't been mugged yet -- people tend to think that /they/ have rights, but that other people are too dumb to have rights unless proven otherwise. Everybody -- and I mean felons, minors, preverts, orangutans named Clyde, women, foreigners, even those foreigners, well maybe not those foreigners -- has a right to be armed in any way they choose in any public space or private space under their control. The government can restrict that right, just as it restricts other rights that minors and felons and others have -- but it can only restrict through regulation, and regulation is inherently so badly used by the government that it is unconscionable to permit a single additional regulation to be added to the /ridiculous/ pile with which our society is currently being crushed into pea gravel.

So you'd have no problem making a death threat against POTUS, in jest? Because, despite Court decisions narrowing the scope of the First Amendment, you actually *do* have the right to say anything you want?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JAD]

Earnest threats are assault. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. How is that germane?

[LOKNLOD]

No amount of "reasonable" competency instruction will be capable of putting all adults on decent footing. The amount required would be a major obstacle for anyone who isn't "gun people" and seeks out and absorbs training. I think most would agree that there are lots of police officers who go through an academy, and get yearly quals, and still none of us would hold them up as "good enough" and there are still plenty of stories about them having ADs and NDs.

If anyone were truly interested in disseminating gun safety and competency out to the general public, then they would recognize that is must begin at an early age and put everyone on equal footing from the start. An Eddie-Eagle type program needs to be implemented in every public school starting in kindergarten and running through elementary school at least. You gotta get 'em young, and make it stick. Unfortunately I don't think it could be done by the gov't, because it would get politicized quickly. If you expose kids to guns safely and in an educational and engaging way, it's going to be "fun" and that's going to encourage a lot more of them to be pro-gun, or at least not-anti-gun. If you take away the fear of them and replace with a thoughtful respect of guns, it would be much harder to demonize them. So it would end up as a "guns are bad and these are are the bad things they do" kind of lesson.

Keeping in theme with the driving discussion, students could receive basic marksmanship training later. I'm thinking .22 rifles in middle school, throw in some centerfire and handguns during highschool. It would be like driver's ed, in that, having completed this basic marksmanship/safety training, you could get your concealed carry permit earlier, just like you can get your learners permit earlier if you've completed drivers ed than if you haven't had any training. So CCW is available to all at 21, as currently exists, but those with the training can get it at 20. Or something of that sort. Or perhaps, a better version, having completed the training enables the purchase and possession of both handguns and rifles at 18, rather than handguns being limited to 21 and up.

That all goes back to the "problem" though - the truth about firearms and removing the stigma and fear will only serve to promote them. That's just how it is - fear and hatred of guns is an irrational viewpoint that cannot be maintained with an indoctrination of them. So the programs would be either seen as promoting guns, or be set up to demonize them further. There really can't be much "neutral" on the matter.

ETA: Another point on the comparison to driving.... there is nothing in the law to keep me from getting in a car, driving it around, without insurance, all I want. The only thing that prevents me from doing so, is my desire to remain legal and my fear of consequences should I be caught. No law can prevent a crime outright - can only provide deterrence via a means of punishment for violating the law after the fact.

[BaiHu]

The problem with anti-gun is generalizations. I'm a short Italian kid from Jersey, so every time some stupid Jersey shore type program or "the Gotti kids" or some other stupid thing came up on TV it gives me a bad name. People wanna know why I don't have a shore house, they wanna know where my gold chain is and my Iroc, but I don't have any of these things. Given all that horibbleness, we haven't outlawed guineas, have we? That would be racist and ignorant.

Same with gun incidents; they're the proverbial bad apple. If we keep arguing on the anti-gun premise, we lose. Make anti-gun people see it as anti-'pick your protected class of people or idea' and drive it home.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[cclaxton]

That all goes back to the "problem" though - the truth about firearms and removing the stigma and fear will only serve to promote them. That's just how it is - fear and hatred of guns is an irrational viewpoint that cannot be maintained with an indoctrination of them. So the programs would be either seen as promoting guns, or be set up to demonize them further. There really can't be much "neutral" on the matter.[/I]

I think you have this wrong. The fear of firearms is completely rational. I used to be afraid of firearms. In fact I still am. Firearms are weapons that have been used to threaten, terrorize, murder and injur innocent people. There have also been many deaths and serious injuries due to Negligent Discharges. Firearms are weapons of destruction whether in the hands of a good person or a bad/mental one. The fear of them is completely reasonable by people not familiar or have never/rarely ever used one.

The media doesn't much talk about how firearms have also been used to defend people from others and to defend innocent people, in addition to being used for national defense. (Although I thought the media did a better job with the Sikh Temple shooting where they wrote that the policeman who shot the murderer made an incredible shot)

At Front Sight, they have been very successful in converting anti-gun journalists and other prominent people by offering free 4-day handgun training, and at the end asking the question: "Would you agree that a loaded handgun is safe in the hands of a person who is properly trained in its safety and appropriate use?" They all say "yes" and then he has converted them.

It may be that the fear of learning to use a firearm is irrational because of the negative image from the media due to sensationalized incidents. In fact, it is my fear of firearms that keeps me thinking of safety all the time.
CC

[ToddG]

Until constitutional concealed carry is a reality, all the arguments that say "proficiency requirements for a concealed carry permit hinder a constitutional right" are based on false premises.

No. Again, your understanding of how the law works is incorrect.

There was a Constitutional right to own a firearm prior to Heller. Heller didn't create that right. It affirmed that the right has been around since the Bill of Rights was written.

Given that only an idiot (or a politician... but I repeat myself) would interpret bear in "To Keep and Bear Arms" as anything other than a right to go about in public with a weapon, your argument rests on the specious distinction between open and concealed carry. People in public with guns are people in public with guns. If one of those people does something stupid and you're around, you could get hurt.

Let's go back to the movie theater example. You see a guy groping at his waist in the dark.

Situation A: you can clearly see the guy is open carrying a firearm. Are you suggesting you'd run out of the theater?
Situation B: you cannot see if the guy is carrying a firearm. Are you suggesting that the mere fact you can't see a gun is enough to make you believe he doesn't have a gun?

Here's the reality. If you see someone in a movie theater groping at his waist, odds are you're not going to do anything more than stare (or to put it nicer, let's say you'll "be on heightened alert"). You're not going to run for the doors. Until the guy is obviously doing something dangerous -- which does not depend on whether you noticed he had a gun beforehand -- he's just a guy groping at his waist.

Everyone who owns a gun should be competent to use it in whatever manner they intend to employ it.
The government is the last entity that should determine what "competency" entails.

[MDS]

So first, great thread!


Everyone who owns a gun should be competent to use it in whatever manner they intend to employ it.
The government is the last entity that should determine what "competency" entails.

Makes sense on the surface. If not the government, then who else would determine this? Should I put a sign on my storefront saying "No Guns Without AFHF Certificate"? I don't think there's an answer to this question that doesn't involve some sort of nanny-ish regulation.


I don't want to put further restrictions on our right to carry, but I don't have faith that, should concealed carry become a constitutional right, the majority of people who would shove a gun in their pocket would abide by the social contract and be responsible.

I just don't have that much faith in my fellow Americans.

I believe the 2A is the fundamental distillation of what makes the Constitution great. I mean, if you define a "government" as an entity with a monopoly on the use of force in a geographic area, (and I don't know how else to define it,) then 2A is the ultimate expression of Power To The People. The very articles of incorporation of our government grant the one defining characteristic of government... to the governed. The governed govern! It's either crazy or genius, and in any case it's ballsy. And scary.

You can't go half way, though. In my way of thinking, voting and bearing arms are both closely intertwined with the definition of citizenship. (Other things, too, but that's a long post...) So to me, pre-requisites for bearing arms share many traits with prerequisites for voting - you don't want felons and insane persons voting or bearing arms. And Lord knows there are a bunch of yahoos causing death and misery by their actions at the ballot box. I wonder how you'd feel about some further restrictions on our right to vote? Maybe an American History class, or community service hours, or ...?

[ToddG]

Makes sense on the surface. If not the government, then who else would determine this? Should I put a sign on my storefront saying "No Guns Without AFHF Certificate"? I don't think there's an answer to this question that doesn't involve some sort of nanny-ish regulation.

That's why I said people should should be competent, not tested for competency. It's a matter of personal responsibility and I deplore the fact that many shirk it. But I prefer that to a system from the same government that thinks 11rd magazines and bayonet lugs are too dangerous for private citizens.

[GJM]

I believe the 2A is the fundamental distillation of what makes the Constitution great. I mean, if you define a "government" as an entity with a monopoly on the use of force in a geographic area, (and I don't know how else to define it,) then 2A is the ultimate expression of Power To The People. The very articles of incorporation of our government grant the one defining characteristic of government... to the governed. The governed govern! It's either crazy or genius, and in any case it's ballsy. And scary.

You can't go half way, though. In my way of thinking, voting and bearing arms are both closely intertwined with the definition of citizenship. (Other things, too, but that's a long post...) So to me, pre-requisites for bearing arms share many traits with prerequisites for voting - you don't want felons and insane persons voting or bearing arms. And Lord knows there are a bunch of yahoos causing death and misery by their actions at the ballot box. I wonder how you'd feel about some further restrictions on our right to vote? Maybe an American History class, or community service hours, or ...?


Democracy/freedom can be a messy proposition, but it sure beats all the alternatives I am aware of.

[MDS]

That's why I said people should should be competent, not tested for competency. It's a matter of personal responsibility and I deplore the fact that many shirk it. But I prefer that to a system from the same government that thinks 11rd magazines and bayonet lugs are too dangerous for private citizens.

Got it. I still like the idea of a "No Shoes, No Shirt, No AFHF, No Service" sign on a storefront. ;)

So to get this straight, your ideal situation is pretty much a reality for most of the country? If you had a magic legislative/policy/regulation/enforcement wand, would you change anything in, say, Virginia?

[ToddG]

If you had a magic legislative/policy/regulation/enforcement wand, would you change anything in, say, Virginia?

I'd love for them to invade Maryland and take over, say, Montgomery Co. :cool:

Otherwise, since I don't have a VA permit and don't know the details of what's required to get one, I couldn't say. I do think that if a government is going to insist on training requirements, allowing NRA certification -- which VA does -- is a must. Keep the standards out of the State's hands.

[TCinVA]

Freedom is sometimes untidy, folks. Human nature guarantees that some will use their measure of freedom irresponsibly.

Human nature also guarantees that attempting to use legislation to keep "the wrong sort" of people from having the opportunity to misuse their freedom ends up poorly. Every time.

958

I've been in a movie theater where somebody lost their gun because they were carrying it like a nincompoop. I'll happily accept the risk of being around someone who loses their gun or who shoots themselves in the buttocks with their gun over the risks that come with not being able to have one unless the powers that be bless the "right" people to have them. I say that because I've had fewer guns stuck in my face in the areas where somebody can lose their gun in a movie theater and not be charged with any crimes than in the areas where only the "right sort" of people were allowed to even touch firearms.

We can all find plenty of examples of people we think shouldn't have access to firearms or even to pointed sticks. Just remember that you are on somebody's "no sharp scissors!" list too. Cede no ground to the argument because next they'll claim the bit under your feet.

[NETim]

Carrying a firearm is a massive responsibility and I wish that everyone who chooses to carry would treat it as such. Part of that responsibility is seeking quality training and maintaining proficiency.

How does one legislate a sense of responsibility?

Unfortunately, mandates invite abuse. As we see in "may issue" areas such as SF and NYC, only the rich and politically well connected appear to be "qualified." (Regardless of how much training they may or may not have received.)

"Freedom requires tolerance of foolishness. ... Without this tolerance for the freedom of others, no one's freedoms are secure." -- Dr. Donald J. Boudreaux

[bdcheung]

Todd,

I really appreciate the thought you put into this discussion; moreso, I appreciate that we've been able to take it out of "discussing the trees" and back to "discussing the forest".

Your posts have definitely had an impact on my views; the post quoted below was the most impactful.

Yes, I believe that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon, under any circumstance. That means open or concealed, on public land. I will always respect the right of private landowners and businesses.

My conflict, as you eloquently stated, is with the aspect of personal responsibility. I don't trust that the majority of people would exercise personal responsibility. And so I try to compensate by arguing in favor of competency tests and other barriers to safeguard against irresponsible people doing irresponsible things and potentially causing harm to innocent people.

But as you and others have demonstrated, there are no guarantees. And I'm coming around to realize that maybe the best we can do is hope everyone abides by the social contract by exercising some personal responsibility, and punish those who do not.

Which is a leap of faith. I'd certainly feel better if we could agree that "those who abuse their rights or use them irresponsibly risk having them revoked".

This has been a great discussion. Thank you.

- B


No. Again, your understanding of how the law works is incorrect.

There was a Constitutional right to own a firearm prior to Heller. Heller didn't create that right. It affirmed that the right has been around since the Bill of Rights was written.

Given that only an idiot (or a politician... but I repeat myself) would interpret bear in "To Keep and Bear Arms" as anything other than a right to go about in public with a weapon, your argument rests on the specious distinction between open and concealed carry. People in public with guns are people in public with guns. If one of those people does something stupid and you're around, you could get hurt.

Let's go back to the movie theater example. You see a guy groping at his waist in the dark.

Situation A: you can clearly see the guy is open carrying a firearm. Are you suggesting you'd run out of the theater?
Situation B: you cannot see if the guy is carrying a firearm. Are you suggesting that the mere fact you can't see a gun is enough to make you believe he doesn't have a gun?

Here's the reality. If you see someone in a movie theater groping at his waist, odds are you're not going to do anything more than stare (or to put it nicer, let's say you'll "be on heightened alert"). You're not going to run for the doors. Until the guy is obviously doing something dangerous -- which does not depend on whether you noticed he had a gun beforehand -- he's just a guy groping at his waist.

Everyone who owns a gun should be competent to use it in whatever manner they intend to employ it.
The government is the last entity that should determine what "competency" entails.

[JFK]

Carrying a firearm is a massive responsibility and I wish that everyone who chooses to carry would treat it as such. Part of that responsibility is seeking quality training and maintaining proficiency.

How does one legislate a sense of responsibility?

Unfortunately, mandates invite abuse. As we see in "may issue" areas such as SF and NYC, only the rich and politically well connected appear to be "qualified." (Regardless of how much training they may or may not have received.)

"Freedom requires tolerance of foolishness. ... Without this tolerance for the freedom of others, no one's freedoms are secure." -- Dr. Donald J. Boudreaux

Agreed

Two things come to mind reading this statement.

1. I can not imagine why it would be good to advocate "legislating responsibility." Recent political events have proven that those in a position of power do think we are idiots and can not handle our own. Just look at New York... calorie counts on every menue, no trans fat, no salt, no smoking. Would you want the same people regulating competence relating to fire arms that don't think you can season your food properly?

2. My favorite quote of all time that relates to just about any political controversy. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[Zhurdan]

Keep in mind though, there isn't going to be a "clean slate" method of getting things the way "we" as gun owners want them. It'd be great if there was a way to do that, but it's highly unlikely.

That being said, working within the constructs of current laws aren't going to get any of us anywhere close to what would be ideal either. Giving up ground is never a good idea, but that's the only way the other side has even considered much of what we're "allowed" to do over the past years.

I don't think taking it to a Federal level would be the way to go. Leave it to the individual states, as it pretty much is right now, but there should be some sort of "credit" where credit is due for those of us that DO go out and get serious training. Like removing limitations. I hate being unarmed and the way that Todd put it, it wouldn't be taking away peoples rights, just reducing restrictions on those who go out and get proper training. I'm not saying that the required training needs to be mandated or regulated to the n'th degree, just that if someone puts forth the effort, there should be less restrictions on them.

[bdcheung]

Answer: Compulsory military service.

Hey, if it works for Israel, why can't it work for us?

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Second%20Americaneocon/Israel_posts_bi8435.jpg

[CMG]

I have been through the Nevada CCW training and it focuses on what constitutes a concealed weapon, where you can carry, escalation/disparity of force and when you can shoot, and a basic qualification with your pistol. The course I went through also included an abbreviated version of the NRA basic pistol course. Ironically the training glossed over the one thing that you do 99.99999% of the time with a CCW which is how to carry a concealed gun. The guy in the article was carrying a pistol in his pocket and it fell out and went off. He either didn't have a gun in a holster and the trigger was activated or his gun was not drop safe. There is no amount of training/legislation/regulation that would have prevented this kind of accident.

How many stories and anecdotes have we seen where police officers leave their guns in bathrooms or on the back of their patrol cars but no one screaming for them to have not have guns. The only reason this is news is because of what happened in Colorado. Like Todd said earlier, until we have a mass epidemic of CCW holders doing stupid things there is no reason to change the current system other than to make it easier to get a CCW.

[Sheep Have Wool]

Ironically the training glossed over the one thing that you do 99.99999% of the time with a CCW which is how to carry a concealed gun.

Agree. During my recent CHL class, this was touched on, but not to any depth. We were shown a few handguns and holster options, but positioning, concealment, and the importance of actually having a holster that covers the trigger weren't really discussed. No comments on what makes for a good/bad holster. Even the concepts of "don't put the gun down your pants, you really need one of these holster things" and "it's a bad idea to play with your loaded gun in a public place" were glossed over.

That said, idiots will be idiots, and they'll find a way to do something stupid.

[ToddG]

But as you and others have demonstrated, there are no guarantees. And I'm coming around to realize that maybe the best we can do is hope everyone abides by the social contract by exercising some personal responsibility, and punish those who do not.

I think it really does have to boil down to that.

(1) Make people aware of what society & the legal system consider acceptable, reasonable, and responsible practice.
(2) If someone violates those requirements in a way that results in injury to others, punish the wrongdoer.

[NETim]

I think it really does have to boil down to that.

(1) Make people aware of what society & the legal system consider acceptable, reasonable, and responsible practice.
(2) If someone violates those requirements in a way that results in injury to others, punish the wrongdoer.

Now that's just plain crazy talk right there. It has no place in modern day America.

;)

[TGS]

The one thing that sticks out in my mind is that as BDChueng mentioned, the thing about carrying concealed that makes it different than other rights is the ability to harm other persons. Thus, it's pretty easy to make the argument that competency testing is in the best interest of public safety.

As to the government being piss poor at legislating competency thus it being a fruitless endeavor anyway, I have a hard time buying that. I would argue that more often than not, the government succeeds. Legal licensing, medical licensing, transportation licensing (pilots or car drivers), ect. Take car drivers for instance. You really think we'd be better off, or just as well off, without competency training/testing for driving? Have you ever been to a country that doesn't have driver training/testing? How about been treated by an unlicensed doctor in those countries, that you reached by flying on an unlicensed aircraft with an unlicensed pilot? Remember that the point of licensing isn't to make everyone the eminently qualified professional, or to eliminate any chance of failure...it's to ensure that a basic minimum is met....a minimum which should reflect a level of competency where wrongdoing is unlikely.

I'll be the first to admit that in recent years some portions of government have created their own job security/justification. NOAA is one that comes to mind, specifically with dive boats and licenses for dive boats. Pointless, being that the dive boat captains are already USCG licensed captains......but I'll have a hard time swallowing that the government is piss poor at legislating a basic level of competency. I'd even go so far to danger that it's often the government that mandates an increase in proficiency, because the industry community doesn't want to spend the money themselves to attain a higher level of proficiency.

Okay, but none of this matters since it's a constitutional right. Aren't firearms quals for police officers then unconstitutional? They're citizens. Thus, they have the right to carry a firearm without government infringement........no? I'm being somewhat facetious with this, but in a serious matter. Some of you look at concealed carry as such a cut and dry issue, that I think this might throw a kink your gears. I mean, shit.....concealed carry is a RIGHT for all citizens! And competency testing is an infringement on that right!

Even convicted felons should have the right to carry concealed handguns! It's a RIGHT! Judging a citizen by their legal standing is an infringement on that right, compelling interest in public safety be damned, it's an infringement![/facetiousness]

I don't think there's many here that feel 18 USC 922g is unconstitutional. Just pointing out that the issue isn't as cut and dry as some of you are making it in order to support your argument.

Obviously, a higher degree of personal responsibility in the citizenry would certainly be the best case resolution for both ensuring public safety and respecting the rights of citizens, and it's obviously not something that can be legislated. Shaking your fist while writing on internet forums that "people should just take responsibility for themselves and their actions" is also not a solution or contributing to the solution....you're just pounding sand. As it is, we're talking a truly miniscule number of ND's in public compared to alcohol related events, or probably most "acts of god"....so I wouldn't even say that public safety with CCW'ers is even a legitimate safety issue. But, I'm not so convinced that mandated competency training/testing for concealed handgun permits is such an infringement on our rights, either.

[JodyH]

Very articulate argument.
Wrong on just about every point, but articulate nonetheless.

[TGS]

Very articulate argument.
Wrong on just about every point, but articulate nonetheless.

What's wrong?

Imagine that. Conversation.

[ToddG]

The one thing that sticks out in my mind is that as BDChueng mentioned, the thing about carrying concealed that makes it different than other rights is the ability to harm other persons. Thus, it's pretty easy to make the argument that competency testing is in the best interest of public safety.

That argument applies equally to owning guns at all. Or owning steak knives. Or a hammer. Or fists. Or a bottle of scotch.


As to the government being piss poor at legislating competency thus it being a fruitless endeavor anyway, I have a hard time buying that. I would argue that more often than not, the government succeeds. Legal licensing, medical licensing, transportation licensing (pilots or car drivers), ect. Take car drivers for instance. You really think we'd be better off, or just as well off, without competency training/testing for driving? Have you ever been to a country that doesn't have driver training/testing? How about been treated by an unlicensed doctor in those countries, that you reached by flying on an unlicensed aircraft with an unlicensed pilot? Remember that the point of licensing isn't to make everyone the eminently qualified professional, or to eliminate any chance of failure...it's to ensure that a basic minimum is met....a minimum which should reflect a level of competency where wrongdoing is unlikely.

Legal licensing is a complete joke. It has almost nothing whatsoever to do with an ability to practice law.

I cannot speak to the medical licensing procedure, but given the tremendous time and number of complicated steps necessary, I don't know it makes for a particularly good analogy.

Furthermore, it's a mistake to believe that licensing is what separates us from other places. There are consequences to failure in the U.S. Our litigious society has destroyed plenty of doctors for their mistakes. In those other countries, how many docs have medical insurance? How many drivers have car insurance?


Okay, but none of this matters since it's a constitutional right[/B]. Aren't firearms quals for police officers then unconstitutional? They're citizens.

Seriously?

Firearms quals have nothing to do with a Constitutional right to own or possess firearms. They're conditions of employment with an agency that issues guns and empowers its officers to use them on behalf of the government. That's so far from a private citizen buying a gun himself and carrying it himself to protect himself that... well... seriously?


Even convicted felons should have the right to carry concealed handguns! It's a RIGHT! Judging a citizen by their legal standing is an infringement on that right, compelling interest in public safety be damned, it's an infringement![/facetiousness]

SCOTUS has already ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to certain limitations -- as are all Constitutional rights -- including, specifically, the denial of RKBA to convicted felons.


But, I'm not so convinced that mandated competency training/testing for concealed handgun permits is such an infringement on our rights, either.

The question you need to be asking is whether you trust the government of, say, New Jersey to create a fair and rational testing procedure. I vote no.

[Joe in PNG]

Whenever I'm inclined to think that mandatory training as the way to prevent stupid things done with guns, I remember old Agent Page late of the DEA. He was, after all, "the only one professional enough" right up until he shot himself in the leg. Yet he had gone through training and classes which told him not to do that sort of thing. But he did, and received YouTube fame forever.

[tmoore912]

Luckily, I live in a State that does not require mandated training. We were just able to get rid of a 140 year old Jim Crow law with regards to carrying guns in "Public Gatherings". Mandated training is just a government feel good measure to further restrict your right to bear arms in public. It gives them a false sense of protecting the citizens, but in reality it doesn't protect anyone.

Speaking of public safety, John Lott argues that training requirements have a negative effect on public safety. He also argues that high permitting fees increases victimization cost.


John Lott, Jr. wrote:
The results also indicate that permitting fees are highly detrimental. For each $10 increase in fees, the percentage of the population with permits falls by one half of one percentage point. For the thirty-one states with right-to-carry laws, this increases victimization costs by $1.7 billion. The large effect from higher permitting fees might be due to the poorest and most vulnerable being especially discouraged from obtaining a permit.... High fees are more likely to deter individuals from carrying guns when those individuals are poor. When fees are high, there may be a smaller crime-reduction benefit from right-to-carry laws even if the same percentage of the population were to obtain permits.

John R. Lott, Jr, More Guns, Less Crime, 3/e: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, p. 181

[TGS]

Whenever I'm inclined to think that mandatory training as the way to prevent stupid things done with guns, I remember old Agent Page late of the DEA. He was, after all, "the only one professional enough" right up until he shot himself in the leg. Yet he had gone through training and classes which told him not to do that sort of thing. But he did, and received YouTube fame forever.

Who ever said that training and testing would eliminate failures or wrongdoings?

They're not suppose to. Citing someone failing after going through training and testing may not be indicative that the training and testing is useless. A singular instance is most likely meaningless. A trend is probably more indicative that the training/testing is failing to meet its goals, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have training and testing.

If LE didn't receive training and qualifications on firearms, I'm sure we'd have many more ND's. Thus, training and testing against a standard is needed. One "profeshinul" doesn't contradict that. All that states is humans are fallible.


That argument applies equally to owning guns at all. Or owning steak knives. Or a hammer. Or fists. Or a bottle of scotch.

Soooo......those items can be regulated (well except fists, AFAIK). I'm not receiving how this rebukes my opening statement.


Legal licensing is a complete joke. It has almost nothing whatsoever to do with an ability to practice law.

A bar exam has nothing to do with an ability to practice law? Isn't passing the bar part of being licensed to practice law?


I cannot speak to the medical licensing procedure, but given the tremendous time and number of complicated steps necessary, I don't know it makes for a particularly good analogy.

The one I'm familiar with is licensing of EMTs. I think it's a fairly good analogy to firearms, as they're both relatively simple end states (the interventions an EMT is expected to provide are pretty limited). In order to be licensed in NJ, you have to complete a state approved course, and then pass a written exam administered by the state. Testing for competency is exactly what the process does.


Furthermore, it's a mistake to believe that licensing is what separates us from other places.

I believe that professional standards are always a good thing, and my stream-of-consciousness thought right now is that most civilized countries, the countries with the best living standards, are heavy on licensing and/or certifications. Most countries lacking licensing are probably 3rd world shit-holes. Correlation? Maybe not a causation in itself that separates us from other places, but I certainly think it's something to consider as part of the success of nations.

Licensing is the government testing/holding you against a standard. Licensing should be no less successful in upholding a standard than an industry community testing/holding you against standards and certifying you. My guess is that licensing is used in place/in addition to certification when the industry community fails to apply an acceptable rigor in applications where safety is on the table, or when the liability rests upon the government.

I've never heard anyone state that certifications are useless, so I don't understand why so many on this website are against licensing except for an obvious attitude that the government is utterly incapable of functioning.


Seriously?

Firearms quals have nothing to do with a Constitutional right to own or possess firearms. They're conditions of employment with an agency that issues guns and empowers its officers to use them on behalf of the government. That's so far from a private citizen buying a gun himself and carrying it himself to protect himself that... well... seriously?

Yeah, it's pretty ridiculous to say and I could have gotten my points across without it. I definitely hurts the point I was trying to get across...at the time I was writing it seemed like it made the run into the comments about 18 USC 922g. Which, you admitted that the RKBA is already subject to discretion (others call it infringement) by the government. So, like I was trying to point out (and failed with a horrible analogy)...it's not a cut and dry issue.

You wrote, "Should we also have a competency test before people are allowed to speak in public? Assemble? Choose their own method of worship? You're talking about a Constitutional right." That sounds like a pretty cut and dry take on an issue, and its obviously (as you've pointed out in your later post) not a cut and dry right. At some point that discretion becomes infringement, and it's not a fine line subject to absolutes.

Competency testing for the carrying of concealed handguns may be an infringement, or it might be a constitutional limitation similar to 922g. I've yet to see anything convincing me that it's absolutely one or the other. Come on guys....I'm pro RKBA, but I'm not an absolutist. This shouldn't be a difficult task ;), I'm just looking for reasons not based on absolutism.


The question you need to be asking is whether you trust the government of, say, New Jersey to create a fair and rational testing procedure. I vote no.

I never said it wasn't a slippery slope. Sure, the possibility of creating a qual that no one but TGO would pass is there. That's why we have a representative democracy with checks and balances, because some dudes back in the 18th century thought government in itself is a slippery slope. Legislation taking place on a slippery slope isn't the sign of doomsday or the blue helmets coming to take your guns.....it's a sign of functioning representative democracy, and has been for the history of this country.

That being said, my personal thoughts are that it'd be mighty hard to legislate an onerous CCW qualification. I think it'd be pretty near impossible to legislate a tougher standard than what your local or state cops are held to. To answer your question specific to NJ, they've already created a fair and rational testing procedure.....so yeah, I do trust them. It's a standard LE qual. The onerous part is probably pretty similar to Maryland...proving an immediate, justifiable need that has no standard against which your need is judged.

Thanks for the response, Todd.

[TGS]

Luckily, I live in a State that does not require mandated training. We were just able to get rid of a 140 year old Jim Crow law with regards to carrying guns in "Public Gatherings". Mandated training is just a government feel good measure to further restrict your right to bear arms in public. It gives them a false sense of protecting the citizens, but in reality it doesn't protect anyone.

Speaking of public safety, John Lott argues that training requirements have a negative effect on public safety. He also argues that high permitting fees increases victimization cost.

Hmmm.....government mandated training works out for places like Switzerland. Not saying we need to issue an assault rifle to every citizen, but just because government mandated training has failed to serve any purpose in the past doesn't mean it's stupid. Maybe it means the execution and motivations were stupid.

[tmoore912]

Our representative government in Georgia has said that mandated training is a artificial barrier to citizens who need or want a GWCL. They will not be passing any type of training legislation in this state for a while. It has been recently estimated Ga. has about 600,000 GWCL holders out of a adult population around 6,096,000. We are the home of CNN, so if there were hundreds of GWCL holders in Ga. hurting innocent bystanders with their guns...................I think we would be hearing about these news stories on a daily basis.

Instead we are hearing about College students defending themselves and killing attackers in Ingels parking lots, grandmother warding off child abductor, Huddle House patrons preventing strong arm robberies, women defending themselves against rapist and on and on and on.

[ToddG]

Soooo......those items can be regulated (well except fists, AFAIK). I'm not receiving how this rebukes my opening statement.

First, most of them are not regulated and people wouldn't stand for it if they were. Even in the case of alcohol, regulated or not, no one has to take a test to get alcohol. Nonetheless, they're all things that can harm people if abused or misused. Thus, "the ability to harm other persons" isn't special and could apply to just about anything. If we follow your logic that "the ability to harm other persons" makes it appropriate for government regulation and testing, we're in freefall head first into the ultimate nanny state.


A bar exam has nothing to do with an ability to practice law? Isn't passing the bar part of being licensed to practice law?

No, and yes.

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who's taken the bar who thinks it relates to the practice of law. It's about memorization, being a good guesser, and knowing how to write answers in a "bar-approved" way. As a matter of fact, I think most folks who've BTDT would agree that the bar exam has little to do with what you learn in law school. That's why after three expensive years of law school, almost everyone takes a bar exam course that teaches them how to pass the test.


The one I'm familiar with is licensing of EMTs. I think it's a fairly good analogy to firearms, as they're both relatively simple end states (the interventions an EMT is expected to provide are pretty limited). In order to be licensed in NJ, you have to complete a state approved course, and then pass a written exam administered by the state. Testing for competency is exactly what the process does.

Which brings us back to the original point: being an EMT isn't a Constitutional right, but keeping & bearing arms is.

How many hours was your EMT course? Do you think it would be reasonable to limit CCW to folks who spent as many hours training to handle a gun in self-defense? If not, where do you draw the line? If you draw the line at any level most of us consider acceptable skill you're denying CCW to the vast majority of people. If you draw the line below real competency, what's the point of requiring it at all?


I've never heard anyone state that certifications are useless, so I don't understand why so many on this website are against licensing except for an obvious attitude that the government is utterly incapable of functioning.

Because. It's. A. Constitutional. Right.

And it's not licensing that sparked the debate, it's the specific issue of competency testing. Again, I submit that government cannot be relied upon to create a competency standard that is meaningful without limiting the right to a very small minority.


Which, you admitted that the RKBA is already subject to discretion (others call it infringement) by the government. So, like I was trying to point out (and failed with a horrible analogy)...it's not a cut and dry issue.

Not trying to pick on you but you're using legal terminology incorrectly. It's not that RKBA is subject to discretion. It's subject to certain limitations like any other Constitutional right. Looking at 1st Amendment law which is the most applicable (a right to do something as opposed to a protection against government action), we're mostly talking about what are called time, place, and manner restrictions. For example, the courts may find it reasonable to penalize people who carry while intoxicated, to bar firearms from polling places, or to deny firearms ownership to convicted felons.


You wrote, "Should we also have a competency test before people are allowed to speak in public? Assemble? Choose their own method of worship? You're talking about a Constitutional right." That sounds like a pretty cut and dry take on an issue, and its obviously (as you've pointed out in your later post) not a cut and dry right. At some point that discretion becomes infringement, and it's not a fine line subject to absolutes.

There's a huge leap from time/place/manner restrictions to a complete bar unless one passes a state-mandated (and state-defined) competency test.

Look at it like voting. There are a variety of things that people have to do to be eligible to vote. But if a state suggested creating a "politics competency test," that would never fly.


Competency testing for the carrying of concealed handguns may be an infringement, or it might be a constitutional limitation similar to 922g. I've yet to see anything convincing me that it's absolutely one or the other. Come on guys....I'm pro RKBA, but I'm not an absolutist. This shouldn't be a difficult task ;), I'm just looking for reasons not based on absolutism.

I've not seen anyone in this thread talk about absolutes except you.


I never said it wasn't a slippery slope. Sure, the possibility of creating a qual that no one but TGO would pass is there. That's why we have a representative democracy with checks and balances, because some dudes back in the 18th century thought government in itself is a slippery slope. Legislation taking place on a slippery slope isn't the sign of doomsday or the blue helmets coming to take your guns.....it's a sign of functioning representative democracy, and has been for the history of this country.

If you think the legislative process alone is adequate for safeguarding Constitutional rights, I'm sure I'll never hear you say anything negative about NJ's anti-gun and anti-CCW laws again.

[Joe in PNG]

Get a free assault rifle if I attend government training? That's the kind of compromise I can get behind!

[JodyH]

Attend voluntary government training (FLETC fed LEO equivalent firearms training) receive unrestricted CCW/firearms permit.
50 states plus all US territories.
All local, state and federal properties.
Trains, planes, boats and automobiles.
Not subject to the NFA (post 86 MG's, suppressors etc. with no restrictions).
Not subject to state restrictions re firearms (mag capacity, assault ban etc.).

Sign me up.
:cool:

Anything less, you can pound sand.
:cool:

[TGS]

The rest all makes sense....


There's a huge leap from time/place/manner restrictions to a complete bar unless one passes a state-mandated (and state-defined) competency test.

Look at it like voting. There are a variety of things that people have to do to be eligible to vote. But if a state suggested creating a "politics competency test," that would never fly.

I can go with that.


I've not seen anyone in this thread talk about absolutes except you.

Specifying a difference between limitations and infringements (ex; time/place/manner restrictions vs complete bar through competency testing) is a huge leap from "Because. It's. A. Constitutional. Right." type of explanation. The latter definitely seems absolutist to me in a land where there are limitations to the RKBA, even though "it's. a. constitutional. right." I wasn't seeing how you separated infringement from a proper limitation.....without explaining that separation, it seems pretty absolutist.

That was pretty tough to explain to me, even though I personally am in favor of "constitutional carry." Imagine the next time any of you guys get an anti-CCW person asking you questions. It'd probably be helpful for your argument to save the "but it's a constitutional right. What part of infringement do you not understand?" part and get right to explaining the difference between a limitation and infringement, and how CCW competency testing is the latter.


If you think the legislative process alone is adequate for safeguarding Constitutional rights, I'm sure I'll never hear you say anything negative about NJ's anti-gun and anti-CCW laws again.

I never said it's enough to safe-guard, I said it's a sign of functioning government. Government will always be messy....the fact that sensitive issues concerning rights are on a slippery slope is not a sign that government isn't functioning or that we're in perilous times with the most irresponsible nanny-state citizens ever, it's a sign of normalcy. Legislation has been messy since the creation of this country. If legislation was always in the best interest of the people's rights and sensitive rights issues weren't on the table, we wouldn't need the government that we have in the first place....we'd be rolling with an efficient form of government like autocracy or aristocracy.

[TGS]

Get a free assault rifle if I attend government training? That's the kind of compromise I can get behind!

982

The formation of the NRA/CMP was the closest we've come to how the Swiss do business.

There's lots of cool things about Switzerland, including their armed citizenry and direct democracy. To my knowledge, Vermont is the only US state that still practices direct democracy with yearly town hall meetings where the entire town takes off work to vote on issues.

[NETim]

I readily admit to being incredibly cynical when it comes to government. H.L. Mencken was pulling his punches as far as I'm concerned.

When we invite .gov to "manage" our rights, we ask for abuse.

The current situation in NYC proves my point.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-09-27/local/27076445_1_gun-high-profile-celebrities-divorce-lawyer

"Rights" are available only to the politically well connected.

[ToddG]

Specifying a difference between limitations and infringements (ex; time/place/manner restrictions vs complete bar through competency testing) is a huge leap from "Because. It's. A. Constitutional. Right." type of explanation. The latter definitely seems absolutist to me in a land where there are limitations to the RKBA, even though "it's. a. constitutional. right." I wasn't seeing how you separated infringement from a proper limitation.....without explaining that separation, it seems pretty absolutist.

Understood. I didn't see the distinction because to me, it's pretty clear that all of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights have limitations of one kind or another. Thus none of them are absolute and saying "it's a Constitutional right" doesn't imply otherwise. If you equated "it's a Constitutional right" with "shall not be infringed means absolute no laws, regulations, or limitations of any kind!" then yes, we had a failure to communicate.


Government will always be messy....the fact that sensitive issues concerning rights are on a slippery slope is not a sign that government isn't functioning or that we're in perilous times with the most irresponsible nanny-state citizens ever, it's a sign of normalcy.

That's a philosophical debate for another time. Or at least another thread. :cool:

[peterb]

To my knowledge, Vermont is the only US state that still practices direct democracy with yearly town hall meetings where the entire town takes off work to vote on issues.

Smaller towns in NH still have town meetings to vote on the town budget, but it's usually in the evening.

A "town report" is mailed to all voters well before the meeting. The report contains the details of the town budget, including the projected and actual figures for the current year and the projected figures for the coming year. Department heads write summaries of their activities in the past year. Large capital expenses, some department appropriations(highway, police, fire), changes in town regulations, and special expenditures each get a separate warrant article and are voted on separately. Each warrant article is open to comment from any voter present. Town officials are subject to direct questions. Any voter present can submit an amendment.

It can be interesting.....

[mc1911]

Back to the original post, this happened at the Bourne Legacy. I have to say, after seeing that lame waste of time, I'm a little jealous that he found a way out of sitting through the whole movie. I was there on a date night with the wife and another couple and felt obligated to sit through the whole thing. If someone had offered to put a round in my tuckus to get me out of there, I might have considered it.