View Full Version : Police say training crucial if concealed carry allowed
I stole this from AR15.com, and figured we might have a more informed discussion without the anti-police "twist"...
Police say training crucial if concealed carry allowed
By Vinde Wells
Senior Editor
August 28, 2008
http://www.oglecountynews.com/article.php?aid=7564
Local police officials say they do not oppose a movement to legalize concealed carrying of firearms as long as proper training and screening goes with it.
“It’s worked across the country. My only concern is that they set up training — and it should be annual training — not only for proficiency but also for gun safety and handling,” said Oregon Police Chief Darin DeHaan.
Ogle County Sheriff Greg Beitel said he believes anyone wanting to carry a concealed weapon should first have to undergo a criminal background check.
“They should have to undergo a criminal record and background check, just as they would to get a FOID (firearms owners identification) card,” he said. “Some states require classroom instruction and proficiency training.”
The Ogle County Board voted Aug. 19 to place an advisory referendum on the Nov. 4 ballot asking voters whether or not citizens should be allowed to carry concealed firearms.
The referendum will ask the Illinois General Assembly to enact legislation that will allow citizens to carry concealed firearms.
Current state law prohibits a citizen from carrying or possessing a concealed firearm except under certain circumstances.
Illinois and Wisconsin are the only two U.S. states which do not allow concealed carry.
Beitel said the concealed carry laws do not appear to pose problems for the states which have approved them.
“Forty-eight states have concealed carry laws and there’s no moves to change that,” Beitel said. “I’m not strongly advocating it, but I’m not against it either.”
Polo Police Chief Dennis Christen said he has no objection to the concealed carry.
“I don’t have any big objection to it. But I think anyone should have the same training a police officer would have to carry a gun — that’s a 40-hour course,” he said.
Mt. Morris Police Chief Jason White said he supports citizens’ rights to own guns, but wants to see rules in place for concealed carry.
“I’m very pro-gun, however, I think there need to be some guidelines for instruction and proof of proficiency,” he said. “Most states prohibit them at sporting events, places that serve alcohol, and in government buildings.”
DeHaan said the training should not be limited to citizens.
Police officers will also need training on dealing with citizens who may be carrying concealed firearms, he said.
“If this is passed by the state legislature, it will likely mean more guns will be around,” he said. “I think initially there will be a transition period. Law enforcement will have to weed through threats and certification. There will need to be protocols and training for police, too.”
Beitel said some people support the measure as a means of self-protection.
Regulating who can be permitted to carry a concealed gun is a key, he said.
The Illinois State Police handle the background checks for FOID cards and determine who to issue them to.
However, Beitel said he believes concealed carry would be best left to local law enforcement.
“Local sheriff’s departments have a better handle on the people who live in their areas,” he said. “And we have the same data bases the state police have.”
Beitel said the concealed carry, if passed, has the potential to create more problems for police officers.
“From an officer safety standpoint it concerns me but I think those concerns can be worked through,” he said.
Christen said the measure may also prevent crimes.
“If responsible people have weapons and potential offenders don’t know who they are, it could be a deterrent,” he said.
The movement for concealed carry began in July in Winnebago County, where the county board voted to place the non-binding advisory referendum on the Nov. 4 ballot.
To become law, legislation would need to be drafted at the state level and passed by the Illinois General Assembly and Governor.
Tara Becker of Sauk Valley Newspapers contributed to this story.
Based on some of the police officers I know that are not in "special" units or areas, the firearms training that a regular police officer receives would pale in comparison to the training that many of us have already taken.
That being the case, I think a training requirement borders on an undue restriction on the 2nd Amendment as well as the natural law of self defense.
I would happily do the training, as I do more then they would require anyway. I just think that any sort of hurdle that is not accomplished with relative ease is a de facto restriction.
Anyone else agree? Disagree?
Based on some of the police officers I know that are not in "special" units or areas, the firearms training that a regular police officer receives would pale in comparison to the training that many of us have already taken.
Yup.
I would happily do the training, as I do more then they would require anyway.
I'm tracking with you here...
Mace
A few things come to mind. First thing is this dumb statement.
Ogle County Sheriff Greg Beitel said he believes anyone wanting to carry a concealed weapon should first have to undergo a criminal background check.
“They should have to undergo a criminal record and background check, just as they would to get a FOID (firearms owners identification) card,” he said.
Can anyone tell me what jurisdictions issue permits w/o doing a background check? Every state that has issued me a CCW/ CPL did a background check. The next thing is that there is no uniformity on the permit standards as it is left up to the individual states. In Washington State when I had my permit there was no shooting requirement, the same with Georgia. Utah and Nevada required shooting proficiency (in the basic sense) and you have to specify which weapons will be carried (Nevada).
Do I think that requiring some training is an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights? Not too sure. Though we have the right to bear arms (a natural right I may add) does that extend to carrying? I don't think there have been any court decisions or case law on this matter.????? Having said that if I lived in a gun-hating state like Illinois and all that stood between me and a permit was training I would do it.
This is in Illinois, correct?
Since they already require that stupid FOID card, which carries restrictions and background checks...
Why would another set of checks be required? That's like saying you've got to get a car owners license, and then apply again later for a separate car driver's license.
If you're going to require something as rediculous as a "Firearms Owners ID Card" then anybody who passes the requirements to obtain it ought to be able to carry legally. (I still strongly object to the entire concept of a FOID card, but if it's already entrenched, it's moronic to add another level of beauracracy to the process).
Requiring some minimal training is reasonable -- a few hours of gun safety and law review, for example -- as it discourages instances (yet can't prevent them)of someone from walking out with their new permit and a cocked and un-locked 1911 in an unsnapped horizontal shoulder holster and shooting the guy behind them in line at Mickey-D's in the sternum. But this is stuff that can be done in one session on a weeknight or Sat. morning.
BUT, something along the lines of this:
“I don’t have any big objection to it. But I think anyone should have the same training a police officer would have to carry a gun — that’s a 40-hour course,” he said.
Would definitely be an excessive requirement. The average working person can't take a whole week off work to take a class, and won't have the motivation to commit that time even if they could -- and the antis know this.
Do I think that requiring some training is an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights? Not too sure. Though we have the right to bear arms (a natural right I may add) does that extend to carrying?
Natural law of self-defense. I suppose my feeling is that I will never know what dangers could present themselves to me -- nor does anyone else when attacked out of the blue.
If they only allowed legal carry of OC spray, and a person illegally tried to kill you with a knife, club or gun?
It would suck to follow the law, only to face death by an "illegal" offensive weapon.
Do I think that requiring some training is an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights? Not too sure. Though we have the right to bear arms (a natural right I may add) does that extend to carrying?
Not really a criticism, but I found it humorous. We can "bear arms" as a natural right. How is "carry" different from "bear"?
PRGGodfather
08-28-08, 16:57
Can anyone tell me what jurisdictions issue permits w/o doing a background check? Every state that has issued me a CCW/ CPL did a background check. The next thing is that there is no uniformity on the permit standards as it is left up to the individual states. In Washington State when I had my permit there was no shooting requirement, the same with Georgia. Utah and Nevada required shooting proficiency (in the basic sense) and you have to specify which weapons will be carried (Nevada).
Do I think that requiring some training is an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights? Not too sure. Though we have the right to bear arms (a natural right I may add) does that extend to carrying? I don't think there have been any court decisions or case law on this matter.????? Having said that if I lived in a gun-hating state like Illinois and all that stood between me and a permit was training I would do it.
Vermont. Unless something has changed. No permit required.
RogerinTPA
08-28-08, 17:05
AZ is another, except open carry only.
Criminal background check should go without saying. Training IMHO, is always a good thing, especially given the utter stupidity of the typical person without firearms safety. Even with people who have limited firearms knowledge, there isn't a weekend that goes by on the range where I don't witness someone getting "flagged" by a gun owner. Some folks are as dense as depleted uranium and annual or semi-annual training would benefits them the most.
Vermont. Unless something has changed. No permit required.
Vermont. Unless something has changed. No permit required.
Alaska too
Many states have open carry laws that don't require permitting
Business_Casual
08-28-08, 17:45
Not worried about what the police think - for instance I'm sure the NYPD think that the restrictions required to get a pistol permit there are quite reasonable.
The Police aren't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution and your rights are not subject to how they "feel" about them.
M_P
I left Vermont out since there is no permit scheme in place as you mentioned.
Vermont. Unless something has changed. No permit required.
Don't get me wrong. I agree 100% that there is a natural right to keep and bear arms. I guess it was my wording that sucked. To the best of my knowledge no court has ruled that we have a right to carry and they seem to gloss over the word bear or use it in the same contaxt as keep. Though I could be completely wrong. Unfortunately, with permits in place in many states and us accepting them (at least those that want to carry) we have in a sense given that right away.
Not really a criticism, but I found it humorous. We can "bear arms" as a natural right. How is "carry" different from "bear"?
Master_of_Sparks
08-28-08, 18:31
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Unless some local constabulary decides that you must pass a written test, prove to the state that you have attended a state mandated firearms class, meet the approval of the appointed review board deciding who is deemed desirable, and paid all applicable state and local fees and taxes.
If the first amendment was subject to the same process, no one could post in a forum like this until some bureaucracy had given us our their approval and issued us the "properly obtained" state permits.
Kind of defeats the purpose of having the BOR in the first place.
I wish Michigan would require that I train with LAV and Pat Rodgers!
PRGGodfather
09-02-08, 14:48
Alaska too
Many states have open carry laws that don't require permitting
Vermont allows concealed carry without permit.
Vermont allows concealed carry without permit.
Yes, that was already established. The comment about open carry without permit was a further elaboration.
IdahoCorsair
09-02-08, 16:28
Open carry is lawful in most states without a permit - we don't have lots of shootings or accidents there do we?
What kind of training do they want CCers to get? The same thorough kind as that elite DEA dredlock dude got? :rolleyes:
"Safety this" and "safety that" - many hunters (of a certain age and up) still have never had formal training and yet every year there are remarkably few hunting accidents.
All in all it's the usual paranoia that somehow those sub-humans... er, I mean those citizens aren't somehow good enough to be trusted with a tool that's less dangerous than the skill saws and screwdrivers they use on a daily basis without training.
Oh. I almost forgot that the 2nd Amendment doesn't say "IFyou've had training." :rolleyes:
IdahoCorsair
09-02-08, 16:30
.....
If the first amendment was subject to the same process, no one could post in a forum like this until some bureaucracy had given us our their approval and issued us the "properly obtained" state permits.
Kind of defeats the purpose of having the BOR in the first place.
Spot on, my man!
Alpha Sierra
09-02-08, 16:43
Not worried about what the police think - for instance I'm sure the NYPD think that the restrictions required to get a pistol permit there are quite reasonable.
The Police aren't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution and your rights are not subject to how they "feel" about them.
M_P
+1
Many states require NO training at all and I would bet a month's paycheck that the performance of their licensees is no worse than those in states that do require it.
We shouldn't need a license at all, and the list of places where we should not be allowed to be armed should be exceedingly short, as befits infringement of a natural right.
PRGGodfather
09-02-08, 17:27
Yes, that was already established. The comment about open carry without permit was a further elaboration.
Copy that, boss. I wasn't sure if my first post was clear, so I elaborated on the elaboration.
+1
Many states require NO training at all and I would bet a month's paycheck that the performance of their licensees is no worse than those in states that do require it.
We shouldn't need a license at all, and the list of places where we should not be allowed to be armed should be exceedingly short, as befits infringement of a natural right.
Yup. Regulation is still infringement, IMHO. Of course, if we beat that drum, our own mantra, regardless of how honest, will be used against us by those in denial. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
Change is incremental, even when the change is the right thing.
MarshallDodge
09-02-08, 17:39
I have no issue with a training requirement but I think 4-8 hours is enough and then have a shooting test to make sure the permit holder knows how to use the handgun. Nothing scares me more than being at the range and seeing a gun owner put a silhouette target at 25 feet and only hit it 50% of the time. :rolleyes:
When I got my permit in CO the instructor for the "safety class" made us shoot at a silhouette that was placed at 21, 50, and 75 feet, 5-shots at each range, and put 80% of the shots inside of approximately 10"W x 6" H area on the target. I passed but there were a few that didn't.
There is a requirement for a 4 hour class here in Utah to to get your permit but no requirement to shoot. Anyone who is legally able to own a gun can carry it openly without any training.
1859sharps
09-02-08, 23:15
Even the 1st amendment has limitations placed on it. So, it is logical that the 2nd amendment can also have limits that will past a constitutionality test.
I have come to the conclusion (like it or not) that when it comes to carrying a gun in public, some infringement will have to be accepted.
Is training and background checks a reasonable infringement? I guess it depends on what the letter of the law spells out.
If you are going to own and carry a handgun, training is a must. No question what so ever. All it takes is a trip to the local range to prove that. I swear some of the people I see at the range, the safest place is right in front of them.
But up to what point can we dictate training and background checks and still be constitutional?
Robb Jensen
09-03-08, 05:31
I'd be all over 'qualifying' to get the concealed handgun permit in VA provided it was not any harder than the local city/town/county/state LE qualification course.
If the local city/town/county/state LE qualification course wasn't the model to use I could see it as a way for the non-pro gun politicians and others 'in power' make it so difficult that one couldn't qualify thus couldn't get a permit.
TheActivePatriot
09-03-08, 05:43
Even the 1st amendment has limitations placed on it. So, it is logical that the 2nd amendment can also have limits that will past a constitutionality test.
The only "limitations" placed on the 1st Amendment is that you can't use free speech to hurt other people (libel, etc), or use your religion as a shield for criminal acts.
Given that murder and assault have always been illegal, the 2nd Amendment already has identical restrictions placed on it.
Gutshot John
09-03-08, 07:46
Theoretically States can make whatever licensing decisions they want. In practice, I don't think that training should be a requirement. As it's not the individual's responsibility to prove he/she is competent, rather it's the state's responsibility to prove that he/she isn't.
Having a requirement of training WOULD be an undue burden. Similar to paying a "poll-tax" or having a "literacy" requirement for voting...which was shot down by SCOTUS long ago.
From a fiscal perspective, if you did have such a requirement, the state would also be required to make such courses widely available. Who will pay?
I love the idea of CCWers getting training, but oppose it as a mandate.
Training as a requirement would be more palatable if there was an interval of time one had to complete it post-issue, to provide for emergent conditions.
Then again, I'd like to do away with requirements for permits, period.
Have been staunchly pro-gun my entire life....it is a personal family heritage and tradition. Further, I have been CCW since my state enacted said law some 10+ years ago.
My training is not unlike many others....military and civillian, extensively on both sides....still actively engaged on both sides.
I suppose I have mixed views after reading several responses herein regarding the requirement to train, prove worthy etc vs the inherrent right established within the 2A.
I agree that the 2A stands on it's own accord and that it grants what it says...."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I don't think that our founding fathers had any issue with creating such a statement [that keeping and bearing arms should not be infringed] about the citizenry of our country; however, I don't beleive that they were dealing with the same type of society we deal with today.
I would say that in such day and age that the 2A was formed, our founding fathers did not live in a society brimming over with as many absolute morons as we have today nor were the citizens of that day and age bombarded with as many issues as our society heaps on people today. You worked...and hard...you survived only if you worked...you took care of family...you respected your neighbor...you placed great value in simple things...you had respect, for life, for property and for yourself. How far is that from the societal norm of today? These facts might have made it easy to place confidence in the overwhelming majority of society and make a statement to the effect that "these people should never be without their arms".
FFWD to today....the overwhelming majority of our society is not made up of the same type of people with the same value set as when the 2A was formed....YES...WE do exist but WE are not the norm.....WE are the minority in that respect.
When one considers how many people in the society of today have so many "issues", so little respect and operate in such a narcissistic, self-indulgent mode, I wonder if those same founding fathers would look at us and confidently make the same decision, based on populace actions and merit, that we deserve the same rights they granted way back then?
Thank God the rights of our society were evaluated and decided upon based on the norms of the members of the past.
I do not beleive that the right to carry is granted carte blanch to "ANY" individual simply becuase of the 2A. Since we have more fools than ever before, such a blanket right would surely be detrimental. Everyone "Can" drive, by law, but you have to prove you are "Able" to drive.
One should have to prove proficiency.
One should be proven not to be an utter fool.
One should be cognizant and capable.
One should be subject to background checks before renewal.
You simply can not grant CCW to every idiot that so happens to apply without checks and balances. We live in the society of today and that society is the same society WE work to protect ourselves from.
I am sure I will catch large amounts of hell for this opinion. I just don't think rights as we have them were ever intended to be granted without reserve to those who could/will harm us.
Alpha Sierra
09-03-08, 18:59
Have been staunchly pro-gun my entire life....it is a personal family heritage and tradition. Further, I have been CCW since my state enacted said law some 10+ years ago.
My training is not unlike many others....military and civillian, extensively on both sides....still actively engaged on both sides.
I suppose I have mixed views after reading several responses herein regarding the requirement to train, prove worthy etc vs the inherrent right established within the 2A.
I agree that the 2A stands on it's own accord and that it grants what it says...."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I don't think that our founding fathers had any issue with creating such a statement [that keeping and bearing arms should not be infringed] about the citizenry of our country; however, I don't beleive that they were dealing with the same type of society we deal with today.
I would say that in such day and age that the 2A was formed, our founding fathers did not live in a society brimming over with as many absolute morons as we have today nor were the citizens of that day and age bombarded with as many issues as our society heaps on people today. You worked...and hard...you survived only if you worked...you took care of family...you respected your neighbor...you placed great value in simple things...you had respect, for life, for property and for yourself. How far is that from the societal norm of today? These facts might have made it easy to place confidence in the overwhelming majority of society and make a statement to the effect that "these people should never be without their arms".
FFWD to today....the overwhelming majority of our society is not made up of the same type of people with the same value set as when the 2A was formed....YES...WE do exist but WE are not the norm.....WE are the minority in that respect.
When one considers how many people in the society of today have so many "issues", so little respect and operate in such a narcissistic, self-indulgent mode, I wonder if those same founding fathers would look at us and confidently make the same decision, based on populace actions and merit, that we deserve the same rights they granted way back then?
Thank God the rights of our society were evaluated and decided upon based on the norms of the members of the past.
I do not beleive that the right to carry is granted carte blanch to "ANY" individual simply becuase of the 2A. Since we have more fools than ever before, such a blanket right would surely be detrimental. Everyone "Can" drive, by law, but you have to prove you are "Able" to drive.
One should have to prove proficiency.
One should be proven not to be an utter fool.
One should be cognizant and capable.
One should be subject to background checks before renewal.
You simply can not grant CCW to every idiot that so happens to apply without checks and balances. We live in the society of today and that society is the same society WE work to protect ourselves from.
I am sure I will catch large amounts of hell for this opinion. I just don't think rights as we have them were ever intended to be granted without reserve to those who could/will harm us.
So the citizens of Alaksa and Vermont are idiots because you say so?
Your perception of a right vs a privilege and from where they are derived is so utterly flawed I really do not know where to start destroying your arguments.
I'll have to organize my thoughts. You have given me too much ignorance too quickly
Master_of_Sparks
09-03-08, 19:17
Have been staunchly pro-gun my entire life....it is a personal family heritage and tradition. Further, I have been CCW since my state enacted said law some 10+ years ago.
My training is not unlike many others....military and civillian, extensively on both sides....still actively engaged on both sides.
I suppose I have mixed views after reading several responses herein regarding the requirement to train, prove worthy etc vs the inherrent right established within the 2A.
I agree that the 2A stands on it's own accord and that it grants what it says...."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I don't think that our founding fathers had any issue with creating such a statement [that keeping and bearing arms should not be infringed] about the citizenry of our country; however, I don't beleive that they were dealing with the same type of society we deal with today.
I would say that in such day and age that the 2A was formed, our founding fathers did not live in a society brimming over with as many absolute morons as we have today nor were the citizens of that day and age bombarded with as many issues as our society heaps on people today. You worked...and hard...you survived only if you worked...you took care of family...you respected your neighbor...you placed great value in simple things...you had respect, for life, for property and for yourself. How far is that from the societal norm of today? These facts might have made it easy to place confidence in the overwhelming majority of society and make a statement to the effect that "these people should never be without their arms".
FFWD to today....the overwhelming majority of our society is not made up of the same type of people with the same value set as when the 2A was formed....YES...WE do exist but WE are not the norm.....WE are the minority in that respect.
When one considers how many people in the society of today have so many "issues", so little respect and operate in such a narcissistic, self-indulgent mode, I wonder if those same founding fathers would look at us and confidently make the same decision, based on populace actions and merit, that we deserve the same rights they granted way back then?
Thank God the rights of our society were evaluated and decided upon based on the norms of the members of the past.
I do not beleive that the right to carry is granted carte blanch to "ANY" individual simply becuase of the 2A. Since we have more fools than ever before, such a blanket right would surely be detrimental. Everyone "Can" drive, by law, but you have to prove you are "Able" to drive.
One should have to prove proficiency.
One should be proven not to be an utter fool.
One should be cognizant and capable.
One should be subject to background checks before renewal.
You simply can not grant CCW to every idiot that so happens to apply without checks and balances. We live in the society of today and that society is the same society WE work to protect ourselves from.
I am sure I will catch large amounts of hell for this opinion. I just don't think rights as we have them were ever intended to be granted without reserve to those who could/will harm us.
Same argument used by the Brady Campaign. Perhaps the first 1A should be practiced by those proven to be responsible thinkers by the state and practiced by quill and typeset.
The intent of the BOR was to prevent the state from imposing its will on the citizens. Those opposed to the Constitution typically pick those amendments that they personally disagree with and argue that the founding fathers were remiss in their understanding of its importance and the minutia, thus we should "update" what the framers intended the Constitution to protect, even though the entirety of the framers agreed on its intent, recognized by the signatures unanimously.
Perhaps we should abolish 4, 5, 6,7, 8 & 9. That way the state wouldn't have to waste time with laws and pesky trials before hanging those accused.
MarshallDodge
09-03-08, 20:42
I hear what Darkx is saying.
When the Bill of Rights were written I am betting that 90% of the population either owned a gun or had a lot of experience with one.
I am not advocating for the government to be in charge of anything or that they should mandate a training class but sometimes I wonder how many accidents could be prevented with a little training.
Just take a look at the improvements that Hunter Safety has given us.
Master and Alpha:
It appears that the majority of responses to the OP were not in favor of training, background checks, proof of proficiency etc.
It also appears that there was an ultra quick lean to scream about not being told what to do by the government. News flash...the government tells you what to do every single day...you've just learned to live with most of it. None of us can scream "We'll never be owned"... when we already are.
From what I read it also seems that many think that anyone should be able to carry a weapon simply by virtue of what the 2A says. If I misunderstood that intent then I misunderstood.
The intent of the 2A was so that the citizens never be put into a position where they were unable to own firearms and unable to utilize them for protection of self, family, property, survival and yes, even protection of the country. In other words, so that the citizens of the new country not be in the same position they were in previously by being subject to an utterly corrupt government and being able to do nothing about it.
As the military is NOT the militia.....a well regulated militia [the non military populace of able bodied persons], being necessary to the security of a free state [being an essential part of that protection and defense], the right of the PEOPLE to keep [have, own] and bear [use for survival, recreation, protection, national security] shall not be infringed [prevented or trampled on in any way].
It looked to me as if most replies were with the attitude of "By God....we all have the right to carry....there should not even being a law saying we can or can not because of the 2A".
All I am saying is that I think we all have the right to own weapons....that is a protected right as noted in the Bill of Rights...just like all the other rights we were granted by a group of founding fathers who wanted to frame everything they could to prevent the new country from ever being in the position they came from....simple.
They wanted us to speak freely, practice religion [or the lack thereof] freely, live freely, not be invaded and infringed upon by our government, have our privacy respected, have a fair and speedy trial, have free press, have the right to keep, own and use firearms.....................ALL designed to counter they things they fled from as they understood that power corrupts.
And, it still works today and should be fought for and revered.
I simply do not think that anyone who wants to utilize concealed carry ...regardless of ability, mental capacity, training, level of proficiency, background etc is given that right simple because of the 2A...it was not written with that intent.
That is a right..........to own, keep, use, to have.
Being able to carry concealed was never written as a right as the need to do so did not exist when the Bill of Rights was framed. Hell, everyone carried as it was the norm....it was a given......it was accepted and society knew how to use the weapon and was not full of a bunch of fools.
Being able to carry concealed...in the society of today...is a man-made thing.....as it never existed in the distant past...even in the height of the Old West.......everyone had a revolver on their hip...it was the norm. If you were able to go back and ask what those folks thought about the 2A and if it covered concealed carry you'd be met with some strange looks and questions. The thought of carrying concealed and whether it needed to be legal or not or needed to be available to everyone or not did not exist.
Being able to cary concealed is a priviledge....and is only a right if so granted by your individual state...like many other rights we have. The 2A grants and ensures the right to own....and if you were to take that statement in the same light as you say the 2A covers concealed carry then everyone who wanted a weapon could go buy one regardless of their criminal record, mental/psychological state...for the majority of this country that simply is not the case as there are laws the prevent, or try to prevent weapons from being in the wrong hands................in and of itself a violation of the 2A according to your school of thought.
Now, I won't respond again as the tone of your response suggests that you are capable of resorting to name calling fairly quickly rather than having a normal, adult sharing of opinion.
The fact that we disagree on what the ultimate intent [read what can be read into it] of the 2A is bothers me not in the least as it is not atypical behavior for mature adults to disagree. It is actually healthy and more oftehn than not, productive. Further, I am old enough, experienced enough and certainly smart enough to avoid ugliness.
I have and always will fight for the 2A....been doing that for decades...and quite vocally through various media outlets.
We are free to disagree yet we are free to be devoted supporters of the same right though we may have different views/interpretations.
Out.
Master_of_Sparks
09-03-08, 21:38
Im not sure if you were addressing me about tone, but I assure you, I wouldn't feel need to resort to name calling over civil discussion.
Allow me to add: "the right to keep and bear arms".
From Merriam-Webster and forgive the long cut and paste, but I want it to be clear and thorough without simply "making up" my own interpretation of the english language, the chosen common language of the framing founders.
All words used were defined prior to 12th century, and bore the same definitions at the time the Constitution was written.
Main Entry:
1keep
Pronunciation:
\ˈkēp\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
kept \ˈkept\; keep·ing
Etymology:
Middle English kepen, from Old English cēpan; perhaps akin to Old High German chapfēn to look
Date:
before 12th century
transitive verb
1: to take notice of by appropriate conduct : fulfill: as a: to be faithful to <keep a promise> b: to act fittingly in relation to <keep the Sabbath> c: to conform to in habits or conduct <keep late hours> d: to stay in accord with (a beat) <keep time>
2: preserve, maintain: as a: to watch over and defend <keep us from harm> b (1): to take care of : tend <keep a garden> (2): support (3): to maintain in a good, fitting, or orderly condition —usually used with up c: to continue to maintain <keep watch> d (1): to cause to remain in a given place, situation, or condition <keep him waiting> (2): to preserve (food) in an unspoiled condition e (1): to have or maintain in an established position or relationship <keep a mistress> —often used with on<kept the cook on> (2): to lodge or feed for pay <keep boarders> f (1): to maintain a record in <keep a diary> (2): to enter in a book <keep records> g: to have customarily in stock for sale
3 a: to restrain from departure or removal : detain <keep children after school> b: hold back, restrain <keep them from going> <kept him back with difficulty> c: save, reserve <keep some for later> <kept some out for a friend> d: to refrain from revealing <keep a secret>
4 a: to retain in one's possession or power <kept the money we found> b: to refrain from granting, giving, or allowing <kept the news back> c: to have in control <keep your temper>
5: to confine oneself to <keep my room>
6 a: to stay or continue in <keep the path> <keep your seat> b: to stay or remain on or in usually against opposition : hold <kept her ground>
7: conduct, manage <keep a tearoom>
intransitive verb
1chiefly British : live, lodge
2 a: to maintain a course, direction, or progress <keep to the right> b: to continue usually without interruption <keep talking> <keep quiet> <keep on smiling> c: to persist in a practice <kept bothering them> <kept on smoking in spite of warnings>
3: stay, remain <keep out of the way> <keep off the grass>: as a: to stay even —usually used with up<keep up with the Joneses> b: to remain in good condition <meat will keep in the freezer> c: to remain secret <the secret would keep> d: to call for no immediate action <the matter will keep until morning>
4: abstain, refrain <can't keep from talking>
5: to be in session <school will keep through the winter — W. M. Thayer>
6of a quarterback : to retain possession of a football especially after faking a handoff
— keep an eye on : watch
— keep at : to persist in doing or concerning oneself with
— keep company : to go together as frequent companions or in courtship
— keep house : to manage a household
— keep one's distance or keep at a distance : to stay aloof : maintain a reserved attitude
— keep one's eyes open or keep one's eyes peeled : to be on the alert : be watchful
— keep one's hand in : to keep in practice
— keep one's head down : to avoid attracting notice
— keep one's nose clean : to avoid trouble especially through good behavior
— keep pace : to stay even; also : keep up 1
— keep step : to keep in step
— keep to
1 a: to stay in b: to limit oneself to
2: to abide by
— keep to oneself
1: to keep secret <kept the facts to myself>
2: to remain solitary or apart from other people
Main Entry:
2bear
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
bore \ˈbȯr\; borne also born \ˈbȯrn\; bear·ing
Etymology:
Middle English beren to carry, bring forth, from Old English beran; akin to Old High German beran to carry, Latin ferre, Greek pherein
Date:
before 12th century
transitive verb
1 a: to move while holding up and supporting b: to be equipped or furnished with c: behave, conduct <bearing himself well> d: to have as a feature or characteristic <bears a likeness to her grandmother> e: to give as testimony <bear false witness> f: to have as an identification <bore the name of John> g: to hold in the mind or emotions <bear malice> h: disseminate i: lead, escort j: render, give
2 a: to give birth to b: to produce as yield c (1): to permit growth of (2): contain <oil-bearing shale>
3 a: to support the weight of : sustain b: to accept or allow oneself to be subjected to especially without giving way <couldn't bear the pain> <I can't bear seeing you cry> c: to call for as suitable or essential <it bears watching> d: to hold above, on top, or aloft e: to admit of : allow f: assume, accept
4: thrust, press
intransitive verb
1: to produce fruit : yield
2 a: to force one's way b: to extend in a direction indicated or implied c: to be situated : lie d: to become directed e: to go or incline in an indicated direction
3: to support a weight or strain —often used with up
4 a: to exert influence or force b: apply, pertain —often used with on or upon<facts bearing on the question>
— bear a hand : to join in and help out
— bear arms
1: to carry or possess arms
2: to serve as a soldier
— bear fruit : to come to satisfying fruition, production, or development
— bear in mind : to think of especially as a warning : remember
— bear with : to be indulgent, patient, or forbearing with
Main Entry:
2arm
Function:
verb
Etymology:
Middle English armen, from Anglo-French armer, from Latin armare, from arma weapons, tools; akin to Latin ars skill, Greek harmos joint, arariskein to fit
Date:
12th century
transitive verb
1 : to furnish or equip with weapons
2 : to furnish with something that strengthens or protects <arming citizens with the right to vote>
3 : to equip or ready for action or operation <arm a bomb>
intransitive verb
: to prepare oneself for struggle or resistance <arm for combat>
Main Entry:
in·fringe·ment
Pronunciation:
\in-ˈfrinj-mənt\
Function:
noun
Date:
1628
1 : the act of infringing : violation
2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege
By definition: own, control, possess, carry (without respect to visible) weapons of any means.
Any law or action that regulates or impedes ownership, possession of, or type of weapon, is an "infrigement".
Gutshot John
09-03-08, 21:45
Master and Alpha:
It appears that the majority of responses to the OP were not in favor of training, background checks, proof of proficiency etc.
That's a pretty raving generalization and a straw man. I didn't get that. If you're a criminal you've lost the right to KBA, just as you've lost the right to vote, so let's not make the absurd claim that the RKBA is limitless. ALL rights have limits, no one has disputed that.
It also appears that there was an ultra quick lean to scream about not being told what to do by the government. News flash...the government tells you what to do every single day...you've just learned to live with most of it. None of us can scream "We'll never be owned"... when we already are.
Again a straw man. Likewise irrelevant.
From what I read it also seems that many think that anyone should be able to carry a weapon simply by virtue of what the 2A says. If I misunderstood that intent then I misunderstood.
Except for criminals, that's exactly what the 2A says.
The intent of the 2A was so that the citizens never be put into a position where they were unable to own firearms and unable to utilize them for protection of self, family, property, survival and yes, even protection of the country. In other words, so that the citizens of the new country not be in the same position they were in previously by being subject to an utterly corrupt government and being able to do nothing about it.
Needs clarification.
As the military is NOT the militia.....a well regulated militia [the non military populace of able bodied persons], being necessary to the security of a free state [being an essential part of that protection and defense], the right of the PEOPLE to keep [have, own] and bear [use for survival, recreation, protection, national security] shall not be infringed [prevented or trampled on in any way].
Yep.
It looked to me as if most replies were with the attitude of "By God....we all have the right to carry....there should not even being a law saying we can or can not because of the 2A".
Who said that?
All I am saying is that I think we all have the right to own weapons....that is a protected right as noted in the Bill of Rights...just like all the other rights we were granted by a group of founding fathers who wanted to frame everything they could to prevent the new country from ever being in the position they came from....simple.
Agreed, but you're arguing two different, antithetical positions.
They wanted us to speak freely, practice religion [or the lack thereof] freely, live freely, not be invaded and infringed upon by our government, have our privacy respected, have a fair and speedy trial, have free press, have the right to keep, own and use firearms.....................ALL designed to counter they things they fled from as they understood that power corrupts.
And, it still works today and should be fought for and revered.
A rather simplistic interpretation of American mythology.
I simply do not think that anyone who wants to utilize concealed carry ...regardless of ability, mental capacity, training, level of proficiency, background etc is given that right simple because of the 2A...it was not written with that intent.
False premise/choice. States have the power to regulate firearms as they see fit...except for the 14th Amendment.
It was not written with that intent, because they couldn't possibly conceive of such criteria.
Being able to carry concealed was never written as a right as the need to do so did not exist when the Bill of Rights was framed. Hell, everyone carried as it was the norm....it was a given......it was accepted and society knew how to use the weapon and was not full of a bunch of fools.
There was no such thing as concealed carry, this was something that came later to make accommodations, so that people could still carry arms, but without "alarming the ladies."
Being able to carry concealed...in the society of today...is a man-made thing.....as it never existed in the distant past...even in the height of the Old West.......everyone had a revolver on their hip...it was the norm. If you were able to go back and ask what those folks thought about the 2A and if it covered concealed carry you'd be met with some strange looks and questions. The thought of carrying concealed and whether it needed to be legal or not or needed to be available to everyone or not did not exist.
What difference does it make to KBA openly or keep it concealed. While government could regulate that you carry concealed, it couldn't prevent you from doing so.
Being able to cary concealed is a priviledge
Absolutely FALSE. Learn the difference between "rights" and "privileges."
....and is only a right if so granted by your individual state...
Read the 14th Amendment.
I'll try to be brief with my perspective:
There is no "natural law" right to bear or carry a firearm. There is a constitutional right in the Second Amendment which only extends as far as the Supreme Court says that it extends. Now, anyone can choose to run down the street with a prohibitied weapon screaming "natural law gives me this right .... natural law gives this right" but should not expect to go home, but be handcuffed, have his weapon confiscated, and go to jail.
Every single enumerated "right" in the Bill of Rights are subject to Time, Place and Manner Restrictions. So, most of the conditions the States place on concealed carry are up to them unless a citizen sues (eg., Mr. Heller) and can get the case to the Supreme Court, and then get them to agree that the regulation or restriction constitutes and "infringement" of the right to bear arms. And, anyone above who pretends to know what "infringe" means is just kidding themself because only the Supreme Court gets to define all those magic words in the Bill of Rights (usually they have got most definitions wrong, imho), and they don't even know until that type of case ever reaches them. It's been a crappy SCOTUS jurisprudence since Dred Scott v. Sanford, Lochner v. New York and in what could be characterized as our second social Revolution: The New Deal cases, which essentially cleared the way to near unlimited federal power. The best way to get what we want recognized as "rights" is to lobby our local and state politicians.
I've been carrying open in Arizona for over a decade and noone has a fit when they see someone carrying a pistol. Our Democratic Governor and Legislature also reduced the CCW Permit course to 8 hours. Personally, I think that 4 hours of instruction in the basic legal requirements for the use of lethal force combined with a good deal of time on gun safety and handling (including dry-firing) is sufficient without any range time with live fire--combined with an instant check for current felony warrants or civil court commitments/confinements for serious mental health disorders. Arizona reduced the live fire "proficiency" part of the course from 50 rounds to 10 (Whatttta Joke).
What I'd like to spend more energy on is getting more states to grant reciporcity to CCW permit holders from other states, or forcing them to. I mean, if two (or three now?) states out of the Union can force other states to recognize the same-sex marriage of their citizens, isn't there some mileage in the argument that other states must honor my state's CCW Permit? I'd even take additional training to get a standardized CCW permit recognized by other states.
QuietShootr
09-04-08, 18:37
I'll try to be brief with my perspective:
There is no "natural law" right to bear or carry a firearm. There is a constitutional right in the Second Amendment which only extends as far as the Supreme Court says that it extends. Now, anyone can choose to run down the street with a prohibitied weapon screaming "natural law gives me this right .... natural law gives this right" but should not expect to go home, but be handcuffed, have his weapon confiscated, and go to jail.
Every single enumerated "right" in the Bill of Rights are subject to Time, Place and Manner Restrictions. So, most of the conditions the States place on concealed carry are up to them unless a citizen sues (eg., Mr. Heller) and can get the case to the Supreme Court, and then get them to agree that the regulation or restriction constitutes and "infringement" of the right to bear arms. And, anyone above who pretends to know what "infringe" means is just kidding themself because only the Supreme Court gets to define all those magic words in the Bill of Rights (usually they have got most definitions wrong, imho), and they don't even know until that type of case ever reaches them. It's been a crappy SCOTUS jurisprudence since Dred Scott v. Sanford, Lochner v. New York and in what could be characterized as our second social Revolution: The New Deal cases, which essentially cleared the way to near unlimited federal power. The best way to get what we want recognized as "rights" is to lobby our local and state politicians.
I've been carrying open in Arizona for over a decade and noone has a fit when they see someone carrying a pistol. Our Democratic Governor and Legislature also reduced the CCW Permit course to 8 hours. Personally, I think that 4 hours of instruction in the basic legal requirements for the use of lethal force combined with a good deal of time on gun safety and handling (including dry-firing) is sufficient without any range time with live fire--combined with an instant check for current felony warrants or civil court commitments/confinements for serious mental health disorders. Arizona reduced the live fire "proficiency" part of the course from 50 rounds to 10 (Whatttta Joke).
What I'd like to spend more energy on is getting more states to grant reciporcity to CCW permit holders from other states, or forcing them to. I mean, if two (or three now?) states out of the Union can force other states to recognize the same-sex marriage of their citizens, isn't there some mileage in the argument that other states must honor my state's CCW Permit? I'd even take additional training to get a standardized CCW permit recognized by other states.
So you don't actually believe in rights. You believe in privileges granted by the state, to be exercised at the state's discretion, in the manner of the state's choosing.
Gotcha.
So you don't actually believe in rights. You believe in privileges granted by the state, to be exercised at the state's discretion, in the manner of the state's choosing.
Gotcha.
And the SCOTUS disagrees with him as well. In Heller, it was recognized that the 2A refers to a pre-existing right, which could also be called a natural right, and that is why it says that that right shall not be infringed. The 2A does not state that people have this right, but rather the pre-existing right shall not be infringed. (This comes from a commentary in the latest SAR)
Chad
So you don't actually believe in rights. You believe in privileges granted by the state, to be exercised at the state's discretion, in the manner of the state's choosing.
Gotcha.
I do believe in rights; and you are correct in phrasing that the only enforceable rights we have are those legal rights recognized by the State with representatives chosen by its citizens. The BOR only intended to be a limitation on the federal government from infringing on certain rights that the founders thought fundamental. There was heated debate by the Anti-Federalists that including the BOR might imply that the federal government even possessed the power to legislate in such areas. It turned out, the Anti-Federalists were better at seeing the future.
As for natural law, it's a debate that was in vogue back in the days when J. Clarence Thomas spoke about it (he no longer advocates it):
(1) Where does natural law come from?
(2) Who decides which rights are natural law and thus must be enforced?
(3) Would you want an activist liberal Supreme Court to adopt a natural law jurisprudence and use their own view of which laws should be guranteed because they believe them to be inalienable. One man's natural law right is another man's anarchy. The founders clearly wanted the citizens of each state to outline our rights. Clearly we have been on a constant slide away from that vision, but believing that I have a "natural law" right to carry a sawed off shotgun down the street does not bestow a legal right to do so. Before you respond with quotes from the Declaration of Independence, remember that all those eloquent things in the Declaration of Independence made the case for separation from Britain, but none of the statements represents legal rights in the wake of the ratification of the Constitution.
I won't separately address eguns comment regarding Heller at length (although I'd be happy to post or email you plenty of excerpts on the point). None of the current Justices believe in Natural Law theory and I say thank goodness for that. Justice Scalia is a textualist who bases his interpretation of the text of the Second Amendment on what it originally meant in the context of when it was enacted. Scalia relies on History, common law, and tradition to help define words that don't have a plain meaning. That's what he did an outstanding job of in Heller. Nino would be the first to tell you that Natural Law Theory is an open ticket to any judge to enact his or her own theory of what rights should be fundamental and which should not.
Gutshot John
09-04-08, 20:31
I do believe in rights; and you are correct in phrasing that the only enforceable rights we have are those legal rights recognized by the State with representatives chosen by its citizens. The BOR only intended to be a limitation on the federal government from infringing on certain rights that the founders thought fundamental. There was heated debate by the Anti-Federalists that including the BOR might imply that the federal government even possessed the power to legislate in such areas. It turned out, the Anti-Federalists were better at seeing the future.
Actually that's subject to some debate. By including a BoR the Federalists argued that you were indeed limiting those rights and indeed subsequent jurisprudence has proven them correct. Originally antis had dozens of rights they wanted included. So why did only ten make it?
Every legal decision uses the language of those rights to define them (what is definition other than another name for limitation?) for instance has the phrase "well regulated militia" helped or hindered our natural right of self-defense?
The rest of your argument about "natural rights" seems to degenerate from there. Natural law exists beyond definition and as such is well beyond the purview of SCOTUS to define. If SCOTUS in all their wisdom rejects the notion of natural law Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike would be horrified. I generally agree with the Federalists, but if your assertion about Thomas is correct, than I have to agree with the antis distaste for a SCOTUS.
There are three natural rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
1. You have the right to live and seek to perpetuate/defend your life against your neighbors AND EVEN the state. The 2a is merely an assurance of natural law. The 2a is NOT natural law...natural law exists beyond the words of the Constitution.
2. You have the right of liberty so long as its expression does not interfere with others. Various amendments are merely an assurance of that.
3. You have the right to pursue happiness, so long as that pursuit doesn't impede others.
The WHOLE point of the Constitution is to establish a government that secures these Natural rights...NOT define/limit them.
When I moved to Iowa from the peoples republic of Wisconsin I was thrilled that I was finally going to be able to carry a pistol concealed and happily jumped through the hoops to include 8 hrs of classroom and a simple test at the end and a basic qualification course. 6 of the 20 couldnt pass a 1st grade level test and 5 more couldnt hit the paper at contact distance out to 10 yds, one woman who had never fired a handgun before in her life showed up with one of those rediculous American Arms mini revolvers. The Sheriff took the time to give her basic safety training and marksmanship training including loaning her a High Standard Double Nine .22 revolver with a 6" barrel for the qualification. Most of the people showed up with either Ruger Mk2's or S&W revolvers all in .22lr. All but 2 of us had .22's I had a .357 GP100 4" stainless and another fellow had a .45. Both of us had duty loads and were asked to wait untill the .22 shooters were qualified so we wouldnt startle them with the noise from our weapons. After we had qualified they ran those that couldnt qual the first time through again. It was then that I came to the conclusion that not only would unrestricted access to CC permits be a bad idea but also that there really are people out there that should not be allowed to own firearms. Folks this was sad I saw people fire 40 rounds at no more than 10 yds and not put a single round on paper. These people were not only a liability to themselves but a menace to anyone in the area. Many of us are Vets and some of us are LEO we have all had firearms training of some sort even if it was with your dad , grandpa, uncle ect. most of these folks hardly knew which end the bullet came out of.
FWIW: In WY we had to take the NRA Personal Protection Course. IIRC it was 8 hours of classroom time dealing with safety, legal, and live fire on the indoor range with .22 cal handguns. And then a range day, however it didn't include some type of formal qual.
I did not feel this unduly burdensome except in one respect. Since this is such a small area the class was/is only offered once a year. Maybe that's a demand thing I don't know.
Open carry is perfectly legal here as well, with NO training requirements. 20 years ago everyone had a gun rack in their truck with an '06 in it. Even in my HS parking lot.
Since what AK and VT are both doing seems to be working out ok, I don't see the NEED for it, allthou I was glad for the legal info presented if nothing else. That was the best part of the class.
When one considers how many people in the society of today have so many "issues", so little respect and operate in such a narcissistic, self-indulgent mode, I wonder if those same founding fathers would look at us and confidently make the same decision, based on populace actions and merit, that we deserve the same rights they granted way back then?
Granted you say? :rolleyes:
Let me guess you are one of those 'living Constitution' guys right? :cool:
Who gets to decide who is 'worthy' and who is 'not'? You? Justice Ginsburg? Josh Sugarman? Who I ask you?
You seem to be making the same tired old argument that a lot of liberal elitists make, namely that these types of decisions should be left to those who 'know better than the common man'. That sickitates me.
The reason we are in this position and having this debate is because we as a society over years have allowed the govt, whether it be at the federal or state level to dictate to us certain things. I truly believe after re-reading the Federalist Papers and other writing that the Founding Fathers did not intend for the Bill of Rights to become a limited define set of rights. Rather they were laying out the most important rights to us a citizens and emphasizing that the these rights should not be impeded.
Unfortunately our society has evolved to a point that as much as we dislike having to obtain permission from an entity to "bear" arms or in some cases keep arms it is the reality and probably will not change. Training is also another factor as we do not live as those of years past where the use and carrying of firearms was the norm. I am sure that we all agree that we have at some point seen azz clowns with firearms at the range, gunstore or wherever that should be allowed to have a water pistol.
One thing that does bother me though, is that if a drivers license or marriage certificate must be recognized as legal and valid in others states, then a CCW which is issued by the state should be recognized as well. It would be very interesting to see something like this challenged in court. Though that person would probably lose, it would be interesting to hear the courts opinion on the matter.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.