1911Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 40 of 235 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,415 Posts
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.
More importantly we have to understand that there are NO rights in our Constitution without overriding responsibilities:
We have a right to free speech but can’t scream fire in a theater. We have a right to assembly but not for treasonous activity. We have a right to worship but we can’t start a religion with goal overthrowing the government to establish a theocracy. I can go on and on but I think you get the point - we have the right to bear arms but there are issues of public safety that can limit that right - but not remove it.
I’m glad we’re getting closer to be in the same page.
Be well - and practice in case you have to qual 😄.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
653 Posts
problem with regulating rights is who decides. the sullivan act in nyc was so one group of crooked politicians could keep another group of crooked politicians from having guns. if you screw up with a gun, then you should get a trial and rope. gun control is one reason liberal judges like to have killers out in 5-7 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,701 Posts
More importantly we have to understand that there are NO rights in our Constitution without overriding responsibilities:
We have a right to free speech but can’t scream fire in a theater. We have a right to assembly but not for treasonous activity. We have a right to worship but we can’t start a religion with goal overthrowing the government to establish a theocracy. I can go on and on but I think you get the point - we have the right to bear arms but there are issues of public safety that can limit that right - but not remove it.
I’m glad we’re getting closer to be in the same page.
Be well - and practice in case you have to qual 😄.
And then there are growing number of states, depicted on the map in green, that properly recognize the right to permitless Constitutional Carry and yet, despite the gun grabbers’ attempts to promulgate hysteria, there’s no blood running in their streets or negative impact on public safety.

The gun grabbers forecast the same gloom and doom “blood will run in the streets” scenarios when the movement towards “shall issue” gained momentum.

It was all proven to be pure, unadulterated BS.

Freedom is scary for some folks.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,415 Posts
And then there are growing number of states, depicted on the map in green, that properly recognize the right to permitless Constitutional Carry and yet, there’s no blood running in their streets.

I support permitless carry. Nevertheless, there will be some in these states that will not be allowed to exercise that right. Right?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
445 Posts
All I can say, if your are not proficient in the weapon you are carrying. You should not be carrying in public. It's called responsibility. Sadly that word is becoming lost in todays vocabulary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,584 Posts
A simple test is a good idea, I wish AZ did it.

20 or 25 feet with an 70% score in a 18" square if i had my way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NDL and Crab Boy

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Mighty easy in Illinois.
View attachment 619212
Even though I'm an unabashed 2nd Amendment supporter, I don't have an issue with the test. I've done it twice now because I went through a renewal. While it's not hard, there are people that struggle. Even though I'm not an official trainer, I got sucked into helping the trainer because he had a bunch of people in the class and my prior experience. Some people got close to not qualifying.

One correction on the meme the OP posted. It's not "21 hits anywhere on the silhouette". It's 70% scoring hits, or 210 score out of the possible 300 points with the 30 shots. And those hits have to be within the scoring rings, not anywhere in the silhouette.

I'll make it even worse. I would like to require that the applicant shoots the test with a concealed carry pistol. Illinois doesn't specify what gun can be used to qualify. I've seen some guys shoot it with a Ruger 22 Mark-something. Since Illinois is thankfully a "shall issue" state, I would like to know that someone carrying can hit what they aim at.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,719 Posts
All I can say, if your are not proficient in the weapon you are carrying. You should not be carrying in public. It's called responsibility. Sadly that word is becoming lost in todays vocabulary.
This is a common refrain I see on many gun forums.

I tend to think those with this opinion may have a different idea of how a concealed carry weapon may be deployed than I do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,966 Posts
I have mixed sentiments about this.

Dsk's comments closely match my initial sentiments, but yes I see problems with applying "qualification" standards.

Someone (leftist types) can perpetually move the goal posts.

On the other hand, If someone's marksmanship is hopelessly inept, then he would hardly be credible member of the unorganized militia. (Here I'm using the Code of Federal Regulations definition of "unorganized militia").
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,719 Posts
All I can say, if your are not proficient in the weapon you are carrying. You should not be carrying in public. It's called responsibility. Sadly that word is becoming lost in todays vocabulary.
Someone (leftist types) can perpetually move the goal posts
Yes, we could require a perfect 300 score with a pocket gun at 25 meters, or better yet at 50 meters.

Imagine how proficient our cadre of concealed carriers would be. Of course, we'd have a lot fewer concealed carriers who could qualify with this more advance test, and no doubt our country would be much safer if we could severely limit the number of legal concealed carry permits the government issued to their citizens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,701 Posts
Yes, we could require a perfect 300 score with a pocket gun at 25 meters, or better yet at 50 meters.

Imagine how proficient our cadre of concealed carriers would be. Of course, we'd have a lot fewer concealed carriers who could qualify with this more advance test, and no doubt our country would be much safer if we could severely limit the number of legal concealed carry permits the government issued to their citizens.
Yup, some folks like to create roadblocks to the carry of firearms which are not based on actual outcomes, and are, in fact, historically contrary to whats been the experience in free states, in order to make themselves feel safer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,966 Posts
^^^
^^^

And this is exactly what the leftists would do.

You're both correct, and it is a huge argument against "qualification".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,415 Posts
Folks who voice support for arbitrary proficiency "qualifications" and other infringements, by definition, do not support permitless constitutional carry.
Hah!!!
I wonder if you’d feel the same if you took a bullet from a negligent discharge from a clown that just exercised his right but didn’t know how to handle the gun??
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,579 Posts
I have both an Illinois CCW License (Permit) and a non-resident Utah Permit. I had to "qualify" for the Illinois Permit and I had to listen to a presentation for the Utah. The fact Illinois had to be forced by the Courts to allow CCW is no secret. So the fact I had to "qualify" was not an issue. Since the State of Illinois has had to issue CCW Licenses, they have thrown roadblocks up at every corner. Funds generated by those Licenses, supposedly to be used for administration of those Licenses and for firearm training, have been "redirected" by the State for other non-hunting or firearm related uses. Then when the staff charged with administration of the Licenses and Permits was swamped, the State claimed they didn't have the funds to hire more. the State fell short of meeting the timeline set by State Law for renewal and issuance of those Licenses. All in all, having to punch a few holes in the proper location in a target is small potatoes.

Grumpy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,966 Posts
I'm not sure that enactment of "qualification" laws restricting legal carry is any more effective relative to totally incompetent persons than to criminals.

We know that criminals ignore any "qualification" law; but how much more effective are those same type of laws relative to totally incompetent persons?

I don't know, but it seems a plausible question. As far as irresponsible discharge of a firearm, wrongful injury to others, etc., is concerned, it's already addressed by existing negligence laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
Hoo boy, this is a tough one. Do we allow some infringements on our 2A right, or do we hold a hard line against them?

I'm reminded of a woman who a few years ago in WA state was grocery shopping with her toddler in the cart next to her purse. Junior started digging through Mom's purse, found her unsecured LCP or KelTec or whatever and squeezed off a round into Mom's breadbasket, killing her. That woman, by anyone's reckoning, probably shouldn't have had a firearm in play in her life.
BUT......
Does that mean she shouldn't have had the right? Should we have required some sort of proficiency test, some sort of safety course, some sort of something?
BUT.......
There are those who say mandatory testing could well be used to move the goal posts later, ensuring that the only people able to own and carry guns are those who are on a first name basis with the local sheriff. Think the slippery slope argument doesn't hold water? Ask an IL gun owner what their FOID cost them. I'm old enough to remember when it was $5, and IL gun owners were "guaranteed" that it would never go higher. Yeah, how's that guarantee working out for you these days?

The problem with this issue is that there are extremely good arguments on both sides. Yes, the dip****s are the outlying fringe of gun owners, but they're the ones who make the headlines and we do not need that kind of publicity.
Yes, standards can help mitigate those outliers, but anyone who thinks they can't/won't be used someday to unfairly restrict our rights has a weak grasp of history.

If you're looking for a solution I'm not the guy. My problem is that I agree with both sides way too much.🙁
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,275 Posts
Hah!!!
I wonder if you’d feel the same if you took a bullet from a negligent discharge from a clown that just exercised his right but didn’t know how to handle the gun??
Expound on what you mean by "handle a gun" as that is a vague description. I assure you that Leftist Liberals have a far more stringent answer for you. Should one be able to shoot a 2" group offhand & rapid fire at 50 yds. weak handed? What about the infirm elderly woman who lives in the ghetto and needs a gun for protection? Should we strip it from her because she cannot "handle a gun" so to speak? There are as many pitfalls on either side of the argument with no easy answers. Do not fall into the lap of the Liberals by restricting a Constitutional right. Freedom has a price.
 
21 - 40 of 235 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top