1911Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
201 - 220 of 235 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
Certainly we'd all prefer lawful citizens who carry firearms to have a little proficiency.That's not the question. It's truly a straw man
Instead, the question is do we trust government to decide who is "fit" to carry and who is not. If the answer is "no", then I think someone is already onboard, or very close to being onboard, with Constitutional carry. If the answer is "yes", someone then believes in mandatory licensing under government control. Which would necessarily be at the state level today, with every state going off on its own....unless someone prefers to trust federal government under Joe Biden.

I don't see how those of you who prefer mandatory qualification can have what you desire without also giving over to government the right to determine the standards.

We have already seen what some state governments have determined to be reasonable. Again, the example of New York is real. They're fighting all the way to the Supreme Court to retain their state government's "right" to decide what is reasonable. There are other states as well who have used licensing authority to trample over 2A rights.


And this is not a straw man argument.
Bada bing,... nailed IT !!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
Perhaps it would just be an easier system to manage if LE would only hire members who hold a USPSA Grand Master classification and likewise only grant concealed carry permits to USPSA Grand Masters?

You're joking RIGHT??? 😁 Sarcasm is sometimes hard for me to recognize in print!

As to LE quals, as compared to citizen carry,... one is a job, the other, is a Right,... and never should the two be joined!!! 😎
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,354 Posts
Freedom and prior restraint, over time, do not mix. If a person does bad, punish. A few others will learn from the effect ... not enough others, but some. If the bad behavior does not slow down throughout the populace in question, the punishment is some combination of: not bad enough; not known enough.

Putting government in charge of prior restraint is a recipe for Biden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chrysanthemum

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
But I don't see how range officers can realistically be the ones to decide whether a person has the Right to Bear Arms. Sure, a range officer's signature can be used on a form. But the form itself and the standards it includes will be those of the government, not the range officer.
You are correct,... because it has already been decided, by a much higher authority!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,640 Posts
I just want to point out that here in Virginia, we have a licensing course. At the end of the course is a similar, easier, proficiency test - 12 shots allowed, and I think 8 or 9 had to go into what you were aiming at. The distance was 7 yards.

Again, it was accompanied with a training course, with instructors present. It went over the basic rules of gun safety for people that are new to firearms, a crash course in the difference between legal self defense and murder, basically as much of the important information a new gun owner that's never picked up a loaded gun would need that they could pack into a 3 or 4 hour course. When I took mine, there was only one person that I saw having trouble with the competency test - a lady that forgot her carry pistol at home (a .38 revolver) who rented a .357 Magnum and bought magnum rounds to take the test with. Yea, she kinda set herself up for failure there - but the instructors stepped in and assisted her. I didn't hang around to see the results, but I'm confident she left that room proficient enough to pass the test. Or maybe they wised up and got her a gun and/or ammo she could handle shooting for the test. As for me, they stopped me after my first mag before the reload because I had already shot the X out of the center with the first 8 rounds, they knew I wasn't gonna miss any hard with the next 4 rounds.

At any rate, the point I wanted to make was the test is minimally intrusive and accompanied by a course and instruction designed to bring your proficiency up enough so those looking to get their permit could pass the test.

On the one hand, I like the idea of constitutional carry. On the other...I have sat back and watched as people shoot at public ranges. So I can understand the state wanting to make sure the people they're allowing to carry a concealed weapon know what constitutes 'reasonable fear of serious bodily harm/death' so they know who they can shoot and when they can shoot them, as well as making sure they have minimum levels of proficiency with a gun.

It's also notable that anyone over 21 can carry in the open legally here, no license or proof of proficiency required. Make of that what you will.
When did they start mandating an actual firing proficiency test here in VA? It has been more than ten years since I got my carry permit, and it was not required at the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,883 Posts
AZdesert1911 -------------------- you asked if you were "debating with a totally controlled residen"...etc etc.

NO you are NOT. And please don't suggest so, and I won't suggest that YOU support guns for felons and preschoolers, under the 2A. Let's keep absurdity out of this.

I think the "hi cap" mag limits here are baloney
I think that the Assault Rifle laws here are garbage
I think our Handgun Roster is pointless

Add about a zillion other stupid CA laws & you now have my general opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,987 Posts
Freedom and prior restraint, over time, do not mix. If a person does bad, punish. A few others will learn from the effect ... not enough others, but some. If the bad behavior does not slow down throughout the populace in question, the punishment is some combination of: not bad enough; not known enough.

Putting government in charge of prior restraint is a recipe for Biden.
Another +1911.

And -- I've been waiting for an opportunity to get this in -- former Raiders coach Jon Gruden was absolutely correct in his remarks specific to Joe Biden. If he'd limited his remarks to those, he'd still be coach of the Raiders.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,100 Posts
AZdesert1911 -------------------- you asked if you were "debating with a totally controlled residen"...etc etc.

NO you are NOT. And please don't suggest so, and I won't suggest that YOU support guns for felons and preschoolers, under the 2A. Let's keep absurdity out of this.
I agree with this.

If you (the general "YOU" - all of you) are going to debate/banter with other members, please use/address the comments they actually make. Also, please don't bring in arguments from other threads/topics to support your position or to insult/discredit members...I have deleted a few of those.

I think this thread is going to be MUCH shorter lived than others...get those important closing arguments in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
AZdesert1911 -------------------- you asked if you were "debating with a totally controlled residen"...etc etc.

NO you are NOT. And please don't suggest so, and I won't suggest that YOU support guns for felons and preschoolers, under the 2A. Let's keep absurdity out of this.

I think the "hi cap" mag limits here are baloney
I think that the Assault Rifle laws here are garbage
I think our Handgun Roster is pointless

Add about a zillion other stupid CA laws & you now have my general opinion.

Hey, just a simple question, guy! And, from the general theme of your posts, I don't think it an outrageous question at all! No need to get your panties in a twist! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
When did they start mandating an actual firing proficiency test here in VA? It has been more than ten years since I got my carry permit, and it was not required at the time.
Probably at the same time they started taking down name, rank and serial numbers 🤨 of every citizen complying to the mandate!

registration = confiscation = subjugation
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,424 Posts
When did they start mandating an actual firing proficiency test here in VA? It has been more than ten years since I got my carry permit, and it was not required at the time.
It's entirely possible that it was part of the class I took, it doesn't appear that the code itself lays out anything specific. It's pretty vague as to what exactly constitutes proof of competence:


DOCUMENTATION OF PROOF OF HANDGUN COMPETENCY – (§ 18.2-308.02)
The court shall require proof that the applicant has demonstrated competence with a handgun in person and the applicant may demonstrate such competence by one of the following, but no applicant shall be required to submit to any additional demonstration of competence:

  1. Completing any hunter education or hunter safety course approved by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries or a similar agency of another state;
  2. Completing any National Rifle Association firearms safety or training course;
  3. Completing any firearms safety or training course or class available to the general public offered by a law-enforcement agency, junior college, college, or private or public institution or organization or firearms training school utilizing instructors certified by the National Rifle Association or the Department of Criminal Justice Services;
  4. Completing any law-enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement;
  5. Presenting evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or current military service or proof of an honorable discharge from any branch of the armed services;
  6. Obtaining or previously having held a license to carry a firearm in this Commonwealth or a locality thereof, unless such license has been revoked for cause;
  7. Completing any in-person firearms training or safety course or class conducted by a state-certified or National Rifle Association-certified firearms instructor;
  8. Completing any governmental police agency firearms training course and qualifying to carry a firearm in the course of normal police duties; or
  9. Completing any other firearms training which the court deems adequate.
A photocopy of a certificate of completion of any of the courses or classes; an affidavit from the instructor, school, club, organization, or group that conducted or taught such course or class attesting to the completion of the course or class by the applicant; or a copy of any document which shows completion of the course or class or evidences participation in firearms competition shall constitute evidence of qualification under this subsection.

No applicant shall be required to submit to any additional demonstration of competence, nor shall any proof of demonstrated competence expire.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,701 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.
Respectfully; there is absolutely NOTHING worse than being unarmed when you’re seated at Luby’s Cafeteria, or hiding in terror under one of its tables, as a shooter methodically makes his way from table to table, and family to family, while shooting them to death at will and unopposed, at which time your only means of defense is to pray that the killer runs out of ammunition before reaching your own table.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
It's entirely possible that it was part of the class I took, it doesn't appear that the code itself lays out anything specific. It's pretty vague as to what exactly constitutes proof of competence:
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.
Actually, dsk,... no need to look that far back in US history. I have a neighbor (a little older than me) who purchased everything and anything he wished, through the mail, from a pile of WWII surplus ranging from tanks to bullets, from down in Virginia!

He purchased a 50 cal, and a 30 cal, Browning machine guns along with a ton of other pieces, at rock bottom post war prices, through the US mail service... BACK IN THE 50's and 60's, (I think, been a long time) for me to be all that exact!

No, Dorothy, we can't go back to Kansas,... but, a few of us can remember when we did!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,987 Posts
Respectfully; there is absolutely NOTHING worse than being unarmed when you’re seated at Luby’s Cafeteria, or hiding in terror under one of its tables, as a shooter methodically makes his way from table to table, and family to family, while shooting them to death at will and unopposed, at which time your only means of defense is to pray that the killer runs out of ammunition before reaching your own table.
Indeed. Then there was the much longer, with far more victims, episode in Paris a few years ago. More than one hour of sheer terror as helpless, defenseless persons could only cower as multiple shooters methodically went around murdering people.

I suspect that any lawful person carrying a gun, even if lacking in marksmanship skills, even if firing some stray rounds would have been welcomed by most persons present as better than no defense at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
418 Posts
Discussion Starter · #216 ·
I agree with this.

If you (the general "YOU" - all of you) are going to debate/banter with other members, please use/address the comments they actually make. Also, please don't bring in arguments from other threads/topics to support your position or to insult/discredit members...I have deleted a few of those.

I think this thread is going to be MUCH shorter lived than others...get those important closing arguments in.
Hello Mr. James well I guess I did it again done got everyone fired up and caused you lots of work. I am really not and instigator and I don’t mean to start trouble wouldn’t blame if you kicked me off this site. Japsco113 AKA as John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,987 Posts
^^^^Don't think that's a big concern.

You're a valuable Forum member, as is everyone else -- and I do mean everyone -- participating in this thread.

We just need to do a bit better at drawing a line at the point where good debate ends and something not so good begins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZdesert1911

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 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 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.
AHHH, So much to answer, ... so little time! 😁

First,... Nope, Fed laws trump State Laws,... been this way for a long time.

US Constitution 10th Amendment,...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Second,... ahhh yes:),... that dear old cliche "for the common good"!

A phrase used, as far back as when Pres John Adams time in office, but, that was late 1800's and I doubt very much it was defined, as, when, dear ole' Hitler used it ,...
(Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz)“ “The Nazi 25-point Programme,” Hitler's speech on party's program (February 24, 1920) in Munich, Germany.),.... or,... how his current descendants use it today!

I think it is by far the most definitionally twisted terminology ever contrived by the democrat/marxist insurrectionists!!! It's definition has changed with the whim of those controlling propaganda, as much as the length of skirts ( quote from the 60's, I believe😁) and by wanna-be people controllers seeking more power than they have been authorized to enact!

Basically, a term that doesn't hold water anymore, for me.

Third,... I believe every state in the Union have current laws on the books to RESTRICT the Rights of those Persons who are violent, not law abiding, mentally ill!

Sooo, trying to DENY an INALIENABLE RIGHT as a form of punishment, is not only redundant, but, in the true sense and definition of the word "Inalienable",.... not even humanly possible!

And last but not least, IMO,... "responsibilities" come with all aspects of living in a civilized society, but, is a dieing, if not dead concept, along with "respect", another dieing concept in most of today's world.

(disclaimer,...all the above, is just my simple opinion,... not to be confused with an order, demand, or, mandate, of any kind)😎
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
3,100 Posts
Hello Mr. James well I guess I did it again done got everyone fired up and caused you lots of work. I am really not and instigator and I don’t mean to start trouble wouldn’t blame if you kicked me off this site. Japsco113 AKA as John
Hello John,

It was you again!!! :)

No worry, I think I have been enjoying your topics.

Have a great day!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,987 Posts
And a big +1911 to James!!!

I'm not pushing for a thread closure, but I think we've each said what we can say in support of our views.

I believe in proficiency, but not at the cost of surrendering 2A rights to the judgement of politicians... especially Dems/leftists. I'd rather take my chances with law-abiding citizens, believing that close to 99% will act rationally, within their capabilities (whatever those might be), when/if it comes to "hammer time".

And I do not have confidence in the government to figure out, by devising some type of test (or "punting" to someone else) which 1% (or whatever the real percentage is) truly do present a significant risk to others.
 
201 - 220 of 235 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top