CCW chowderhead gets charged

[SMETNA]

I disagree. Taking a test or setting some training opens the door for shit like what happens in California. We have a right to bear arms and personally all states should revert to constitutional carry. Along with that make people accountable for their actions. This could have happened here in AZ where we have constitutional carry. So what action would you take then? You can't revoke or suspend her permit. She was negligent which means criminal charges and possible civil damages.

I agree with you, but I'm going to play opposition:

Driving is a licensed activity that requires training and testing in order to be granted. Yet we have an unalienable right to freedom of locomotion.

Would you suggest that we let anyone and everyone pilot a motor vehicle with no training, and simply prosecute those who exhibit negligence of safety, or ignorance of the traffic laws?

Once again, I agree with you that inherent rights should not require permission from government. But taking that same argument over to other rights clouds up the issue some.

[AKDoug]

Considering the stunning amount of bad drivers out there, I submit that doing away with licensing requirements other than age probably wouldn't change a thing. Responsible people are going to learn how to do it right, irresponsible ones are going to drive without training (just like they already do). There are millions of unlicensed drivers out there with us every day.

[Iraqgunz]

Nothing in the Bill of Rights says you have a right to drive. The problem with regulating the 2nd Amendment is there are those who would see it go the way of the Dodo bird.

In theory I wouldn't have a problem with issuing permits after demonstrating basic proficiency and a class on the legal aspects. But, the problem is that once the door is open it allows for continuous intrusion by set out to destroy it. Then you have states that want to charge outrageous fees, subjective tests, etc....

I agree with you, but I'm going to play opposition:

Driving is a licensed activity that requires training and testing in order to be granted. Yet we have an unalienable right to freedom of locomotion.

Would you suggest that we let anyone and everyone pilot a motor vehicle with no training, and simply prosecute those who exhibit negligence of safety, or ignorance of the traffic laws?

Once again, I agree with you that inherent rights should not require permission from government. But taking that same argument over to other rights clouds up the issue some.

[SMETNA]

Nothing in the Bill of Rights says you have a right to drive.

But we just finished agreeing that our rights are inherent upon birth. We don't get them through or from the BoR.

(Setting aside the fact that the 9th Amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." )

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The actual inherent right is to self defense (to exist). Another inherent right is to self determination (make your own decisions). Those are linked together. The 2A is the Founders way of best protecting those rights. They moved the goal post from protecting the right to the means of protecting the right.

[SMETNA]

The actual inherent right is to self defense (to exist). Another inherent right is to self determination (make your own decisions). Those are linked together. The 2A is the Founders way of best protecting those rights. They moved the goal post from protecting the right to the means of protecting the right.

Excellent point.

And that's why the "changes in weapon technology" argument for an AWB is bullshit. You know, the founders could never have anticipated guns with _______ capable of firing _______.

If muzzle loaders were the only arms legal, effective self defense would be nearly impossible. So the people must have access to modern arms to defend against criminals (civilian or government) using modern arms.

[QuickStrike]

Damn, this is a couple of miles away from the other CU campus that I used to go to.


Great, more fuel for the libtard weenies to try and take away concealed carry on Campus.


Stupid people...

[ST911]

A run of ND incidents I've investigated since Jan 2010 produced assorted GSWs, personal injury, and property damage. All but a couple of the shooters had some sort of current or past mil, gov, or LE service and firearms training.

Just sayin'.

[rackham1]

Where would you find the statute that says a TX resident can carry with a reciprocal state's CCW license or a statute that allows for this??

I know you might have been asking for specific Code citations or something, but in general here's a good launching point for these kinds of questions:

http://handgunlaw.us/

[rackham1]

But we just finished agreeing that our rights are inherent upon birth. We don't get them through or from the BoR.

(Setting aside the fact that the 9th Amendment reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." )

But a key point between the "right to bear arms" (which is directly guaranteed by the 2A) and your "right to locomotion" (which as you noted is indirectly guaranteed by the 9A) is that a "right" to drive a car is sort of tied to the "privilege" of using government-maintained roads, transportation network, traffic enforcement, etc.

To me, this is what makes a gov-issued drivers license acceptable while a gov-issued CCW permit is questionable, when viewed from a principle standpoint. I can't think of any way the state provides for the means to excerise our right to self-defense like it does for us to drive around to make a living.

I know your point was devils-advocate so I'm not trying to argue with you... but I'm throwing out what I think it a critical apples and oranges difference that gets left out when the "opposition" brings up something like the drivers license argument.