1911Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 235 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,528 Posts
We had that. Some shooting from the hip. And some unsighted shooting.

But we weren't graded or anything. Everyone showed decent competency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,415 Posts
I see no problem - if deemed reasonable by capable shooters.
LEOs have go thru quals, one has to qualify to get an auto license and one has to qualify to prescribe meds. So it doesn’t seem to be a big deal to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
Seems to me, here in MN, we had nearly the same test when MN began permits. Fired 6 rounds for my last MN renewal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
"There shouldn't be a test", same for HS and college, why a test ?.............. maybe to get out the the morons that can't even flip a burger and then, want $15.00 an hour
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,701 Posts
In Florida you fire one single round, and in order to “pass”, the bullet must exit the bore and proceed down range, which in my opinion, is an unnecessary infringement, since we’ve got roughly 2,000,000 concealed firearms and weapons license holders and there’s been no negative impact on public safety due to lack of “qualification” testing.

The Constitutional clause regarding the requirement to pass a test to exercise your rights under the second amendment is right there next to the clause that says the second amendment is about hunting deer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,701 Posts
I see no problem - if deemed reasonable by capable shooters.
LEOs have go thru quals, one has to qualify to get an auto license and one has to qualify to prescribe meds. So it doesn’t seem to be a big deal to me.
Driving an automobile on public thoroughfares, and/or prescribing meds, are privileges granted by the state rather than innate human rights that are enumerated in, and protected by, The Constitution of The United States.

LEOs have to go through qualification trials as a condition of employment, and likewise, gaining employment in law enforcement is a privilege granted by the state and not an innate human right that’s protected via enumeration in The Constitution.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
75,397 Posts
Mighty easy in Illinois.
View attachment 619212
Basically they just want proof that you know which end of the gun to hold. If it was the opposite extreme and they expected something like 2" 10-shot groups offhand at 50 yards everybody would be all up in arms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,415 Posts
LEOs have to go through qualification trials as a condition of employment, and likewise, gaining employment in law enforcement is a privilege granted by the state and not an innate human right that’s protected via enumeration in The Constitution.
The Constitution may give me a right to bear arms - but that doesn’t preclude the right of the states to set certain conditions for the common good. Persons who are violent, not law abiding, mentally ill - and I’ll add those who don’t know how to safely load and discharge a weapon or are unwilling to demonstrate it should be denied that right.
We always talk of rights - but they come with responsibilities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
In Florida you fire one single round, and in order to “pass”, the bullet must exit the bore and proceed down range, which in my opinion, is an unnecessary infringement, since we’ve got roughly 2,000,000 concealed firearms and weapons license holders and there’s been no negative impact on public safety due to lack of “qualification” testing.

The Constitutional clause regarding the requirement to pass a test to exercise your rights under the second amendment is right there next to the clause that says the second amendment is about hunting deer.
Incorrect, in Florida you have to fire six rounds at a seven yards target, if you miss it completely, must try again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
The Constitution may give me a right to bear arms - but that doesn’t preclude the right of the states to set certain conditions for the common good. Persons who are violent, not law abiding, mentally I’ll - and I’ll add those who don’t know how to safely load and discharge a weapon or are unwilling to demonstrate it should be denied that right.
We always talk of rights - but they come with responsibilities.
Need to argue this one.
The Constitution says nothing about removing a right from a felon, or an unskilled person. A felon who who has paid their debt still has all rights save for voting and firearms.
Can argue should be/could be all day long but as written is as written.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,415 Posts
Need to argue this one.
The Constitution says nothing about removing a right from a felon, or an unskilled person. A felon who who has paid their debt still has all rights save for voting and firearms.
Can argue should be/could be all day long but as written is as written.
What is written is interpreted by the Supreme Court.
BTW, I never used the word felon - I referred to violent people like those in Antifa or have a long history of lawlessness. I rest my case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
What is written is interpreted by the Supreme Court.
BTW, I never used the word felon - I referred to violent people like those in Antifa or have a long history of lawlessness. I rest my case.
I basically agree with you. However, antifa and the other scum have the same rights as you and I. To change that we need what 2/3 of states? But be careful. What if 2/3 states want our rights revoked.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
75,397 Posts
It would be lovely if we could go back to the gun laws of the 1870s when firearms could be purchased by anyone, carried virtually everywhere, and the only paperwork involved was the cashier's receipt. Unfortunately anyone who thinks we will ever see those days again is dreaming. Back then, if you carried a gun you didn't know how to use you didn't last long. Today things are different. We have a lot of people who never grew up around firearms and know very little about them, yet thanks to all the career criminals roaming the streets they feel the need to buy a gun and carry it in public. I'm all for that, but keeping in mind the fact that they may have next to no training or skill in shooting a firearm I do think it's wise to make sure they have at least some idea what they're doing. I don't care if a mandatory demonstration of skill is constitutional or not. I only care that it's a good idea. The only thing worse than being unarmed is being armed with a weapon you don't know how to use properly, making you as dangerous to yourself or others around you as you might be to a bad guy.
 
1 - 20 of 235 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top