PDA

View Full Version : Can DC do this? ....Is Ca next?


Ding126
12-16-2008, 1:40 PM
http://www.wric.com/global/story.asp?s=9532116

ASHINGTON (AP) - The D.C. Council has approved legislation requiring gun owners to register their weapons every three years and receive training by a certified firearms instructor.

Tuesday's vote builds on legislation passed by the council in recent months following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that overturned the city's 32-year handgun ban.

In September, the council voted to allow residents to own most semiautomatic pistols, but banned magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The bill adopted Tuesday requires gun owners to spend at least one hour at the firing range and four hours in the classroom with an instructor before registering a weapon.

The legislation also requires that residents submit to a background check every six years.

dark45
12-16-2008, 1:45 PM
that might even drive me out of california.....

Dr Rockso
12-16-2008, 1:46 PM
They're testing the waters. It's easy to pass stupid crap that will get righteously slapped down in court when you're not paying the legal bills.

383green
12-16-2008, 3:29 PM
In September, the council voted to allow residents to own most semiautomatic pistols, but banned magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

I assume that "magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds of ammunition" is just poor wording by the reporter, but if a law was actually passed with such wording, that would be all sorts of interesting. I have various magazines with capacities both less than and greater than 10 rounds (all perfectly legal, I assure you!), but there's not a single one of them that can fire even a single round. ;)

Window_Seat
12-16-2008, 3:47 PM
They can do it as long as the people allow them to do it. It's up to the people to put a stop to it. As long as the people continue to allow it, they (DC, and other local, state & federal Govt) will continue to do it.

Erik.

berto
12-16-2008, 4:10 PM
Is there a public range in DC proper where the training can take place? If so, is it affordable for the majority of DC residents? The DC council is looking at another smackdown.

hawk1
12-16-2008, 4:27 PM
They can do it as long as the people allow them to do it. It's up to the people to put a stop to it. As long as the people continue to allow it, they (DC, and other local, state & federal Govt) will continue to do it.

Erik.

Come on this is reply such bull****.
What part of 'they don't listen to the people' do you not understand?

Example, Wall Street bailout. They heard 'the people' and they still passed it.

Stop with the if they hear from 'the people' crap...:rolleyes:

Solidmch
12-16-2008, 4:38 PM
kind of seems like they missed the entire point of "shall not infringe.":38:

jjperl
12-16-2008, 5:23 PM
This BS will be contested in court right away. That's a ridiculous restriction on a RIGHT. We don't have to attend 4 hours of class every year to speak, we shouldn't have to to own a gun.

FreedomIsNotFree
12-16-2008, 5:46 PM
I believe Gura will be financially pleased with DC's latest decision.

bwiese
12-16-2008, 5:47 PM
Jeezus, this law should be renamed the Alan Gura Full Employment & Rich Lifestyle Funding Act.

Heller may allow initial registration. The continual renewal is harassment.

If someone forgot to renew, how could he lose a fundamental enumerated right?

Continual training also likely falls into the same category.

nobody_special
12-16-2008, 7:58 PM
Heller may allow initial registration.
Key word there being may... the way I read it, I suspect Scalia would've struck that down too, if Gura had asked that it be addressed.

Maybe someday...

Pont
12-16-2008, 8:34 PM
This could get the "Cops are Citizens" reasonableness test enshrined in law.

PonchoTA
12-16-2008, 8:43 PM
So, average Joe's that just want to protect themselves and their homes have to be MORE qualified than the police?

Stupid.

N6ATF
12-16-2008, 10:09 PM
They can do it as long as the people allow them to do it they are alive, conscious, and breathing.
It's up to the people God, or a supreme mortal authority over traitors to put a stop to it.
As long as the people continue to allow it they are alive, conscious, and breathing, they (DC, and other local, state & federal Govt) will continue to do it.

Fixed.

nick
12-16-2008, 10:19 PM
Come on this is reply such bull****.
What part of 'they don't listen to the people' do you not understand?

Example, Wall Street bailout. They heard 'the people' and they still passed it.

Stop with the if they hear from 'the people' crap...:rolleyes:

Umm, somebody votes for them? :)

dwa
12-16-2008, 10:28 PM
they should rename DC Gura City hes goona own the whole place soon enough

rayra
12-16-2008, 10:46 PM
Obviously the turds in DC sat down after their defeats to obstruct on type, action, brand, length et al and 'brainstormed' about ways that would still massively obstruct legal firearm ownership in DC without running afoul of Heller's overall ruling on the nature of the second and on 'commonly used'.
They've instead chosen to erect more hurdles along the lines of the dearth of FFLs in DC - forming chokepoints to ownership that attempt to make it as burdensome as possible to comply with, so decent folks just don't make the effort.
This sort of malfeasance in office, this sort of ideological fascism masquerading as 'public safety' ought to be vigorously met with tar & feathers, at a minimum.

jacques
12-16-2008, 11:00 PM
Isn't it frustrating. They are behaving like little children.

Obviously the turds in DC sat down after their defeats to obstruct on type, action, brand, length et al and 'brainstormed' about ways that would still massively obstruct legal firearm ownership in DC without running afoul of Heller's overall ruling on the nature of the second and on 'commonly used'.
They've instead chosen to erect more hurdles along the lines of the dearth of FFLs in DC - forming chokepoints to ownership that attempt to make it as burdensome as possible to comply with, so decent folks just don't make the effort.
This sort of malfeasance in office, this sort of ideological fascism masquerading as 'public safety' ought to be vigorously met with tar & feathers, at a minimum.

Window_Seat
12-17-2008, 4:49 AM
Fixed.

:laugh:

99sparks
12-17-2008, 5:41 AM
Is this what the “other side” calls “reasonable” gun controls?

hawk1
12-17-2008, 7:23 AM
Umm, somebody votes for them? :)

Sure they do. We have plenty here at Calguns that vote the same way.
More people everyday voting to fill their pockets first, then for other reasons second.
It's only going to get worse.

Vectrexer
12-17-2008, 8:07 AM
Well, I am sure this is going to piss some people off but,,,, I have have to say that I agree in spirit with the idea of requiring training and some range time before gun ownership.

I do not agree with registration of the gun every three years. Once the gun is registered that should be it until the gun is sold. Even then a sale and a letter of notice of non-ownership should be voluntary. More of a CYA than a requirement.


Nor should a background check be required every six years. Once your name is associated with the pistol then other problems in your life should automatically reveal any legal issues. And really folks, do you think automated search processes don't already run on you?


The D.C. regulation (like all regulations) has an acorn of good intent with a whole tree of bad issues. Other bad issues like require photos along with the registration and a whole host of other regulations and restrictions that make the Kali regulations and restrictions seem tame in comparison.

Back to the training issue for te second. I seriously doubt D.C. will allow training on ranges that allow outside of D.C. to count towards the requirement. Yet another way to allow (but not allow) firearms access by the common citizen.

So I have to say I am against just about anything that D.C. has to offer int he way of "protecting the public from itself."

The Director
12-17-2008, 8:34 AM
One of the mechanisms of a police state is to turn your rights into privileges, then make you jump through hoops to obtain those privileges.

hill billy
12-17-2008, 8:36 AM
Well, I am sure this is going to piss some people off but,,,, I have have to say that I agree in spirit with the idea of requiring training and some range time before gun ownership.
Boats kill thousands of people each year yet you can walk in and buy a boat without even having a driver's license.

nooner
12-17-2008, 8:46 AM
Well, I am sure this is going to piss some people off but,,,, I have have to say that I agree in spirit with the idea of requiring training and some range time before gun ownership.Training isn't required to exercise your freedom of speech.

Liberty is not about what you feel safe with. Freedom has consequences both good and bad. You have to take one with the other, you can't pick and choose AND remain free.

tcrpe
12-17-2008, 9:09 AM
In September, the council voted to allow residents to own most semiautomatic pistols, but banned magazines capable of firing more than 10 rounds of ammunition.




That's might generous of them . . . . .

CHS
12-17-2008, 9:38 AM
Is this what the “other side” calls “reasonable” gun controls?

No no.. Those aren't "reasonable", they're "common sense"! :)

alex00
12-17-2008, 10:31 AM
Well, I am sure this is going to piss some people off but,,,, I have have to say that I agree in spirit with the idea of requiring training and some range time before gun ownership.

I whole-heartedly disagree with this. Training should not be required to exercise a fundamental right. What's next, require formal debate training before we can speak out against the government? Should we be forced to study case law before we are protected from unlawful search and seizure? Requiring training is an infringement upon a right. What if someone fails training? Do we get to deny them the right?

bulgron
12-17-2008, 11:00 AM
I whole-heartedly disagree with this. Training should not be required to exercise a fundamental right. What's next, require formal debate training before we can speak out against the government? Should we be forced to study case law before we are protected from unlawful search and seizure? Requiring training is an infringement upon a right. What if someone fails training? Do we get to deny them the right?

You're ignoring the potential collision of two rights: the right to bear arms in self defense, and the right to remain healthy and alive. If someone exercises the first right irresponsibly, they can easily interfere with someone else's enjoyment of the second.

Not even the founding fathers thought people should be walking around with guns without having some clue on how they work, and how to use them safely.

It would be better for everyone if fathers just taught their children how to use guns. But we can't rely on that anymore. What I'd like to see is our public and private schools being required to ensure children know how to use firearms responsibly before allowing them to graduate. (Kids should be able to "test out" of the class if they receive instruction from someplace other than the school.) That way, we could eliminate the need for training requirements, and therefore for licensing requirements entirely.

Librarian
12-17-2008, 12:49 PM
It would be better for everyone if fathers just taught their children how to use guns. But we can't rely on that anymore. What I'd like to see is our public and private schools being required to ensure children know how to use firearms responsibly before allowing them to graduate. (Kids should be able to "test out" of the class if they receive instruction from someplace other than the school.) That way, we could eliminate the need for training requirements, and therefore for licensing requirements entirely.
Something like this would be ideal.

The problem with using training as a gating factor is who controls the training? If the training is offered once a decade by exactly one authorized trainer, or the class runs a month and costs $10,000, or some other onerous requirement is made, it's closely akin to voter qualification tests.

Imagine if the handgun purchase demonstration required detail stripping and re-assembly blindfolded.

Training, both physical (operation, accuracy) and legal (when can I use this?) should be viewed by each individual as an ethical/moral requirement imposed on him/herself.

AKman
12-17-2008, 1:03 PM
Something like this would be ideal.

The problem with using training as a gating factor is who controls the training? If the training is offered once a decade by exactly one authorized trainer, or the class runs a month and costs $10,000, or some other onerous requirement is made, it's closely akin to voter qualification tests.

Imagine if the handgun purchase demonstration required detail stripping and re-assembly blindfolded.

Training, both physical (operation, accuracy) and legal (when can I use this?) should be viewed by each individual as an ethical/moral requirement imposed on him/herself.

Make everyone attend a CMP event (like a RWVA Appleseed event). Its good enough for CMP, so it should be good enough for any government agency requiring some sort of training.

dwa
12-17-2008, 3:19 PM
Well, I am sure this is going to piss some people off but,,,, I have have to say that I agree in spirit with the idea of requiring training and some range time before gun ownership.

I do not agree with registration of the gun every three years. Once the gun is registered that should be it until the gun is sold. Even then a sale and a letter of notice of non-ownership should be voluntary. More of a CYA than a requirement.


Nor should a background check be required every six years. Once your name is associated with the pistol then other problems in your life should automatically reveal any legal issues. And really folks, do you think automated search processes don't already run on you?


The D.C. regulation (like all regulations) has an acorn of good intent with a whole tree of bad issues. Other bad issues like require photos along with the registration and a whole host of other regulations and restrictions that make the Kali regulations and restrictions seem tame in comparison.

Back to the training issue for te second. I seriously doubt D.C. will allow training on ranges that allow outside of D.C. to count towards the requirement. Yet another way to allow (but not allow) firearms access by the common citizen.

So I have to say I am against just about anything that D.C. has to offer int he way of "protecting the public from itself."

im suprised im the only one that connected the dots. im sure the registration and instrution has some FEES attached. they are just trying to extort some revenue and drive the cost of ownership up. "sure you can own a gun...after we get our piece of the action" hell they will probably use the money to pay for their next plan to remove firearms

bulgron
12-17-2008, 3:31 PM
Something like this would be ideal.

The problem with using training as a gating factor is who controls the training? If the training is offered once a decade by exactly one authorized trainer, or the class runs a month and costs $10,000, or some other onerous requirement is made, it's closely akin to voter qualification tests.

Obviously training can't be used to disqualify the vast majority of the population or we end up with Jim Crowe laws all over again.

But there IS a intersection of personal rights versus public safety here that isn't easily answered with the way society currently is. The best answer is to make firearm safety training an exit requirement for high school. The next best answer is to define a very minimum amount of training that must be met by the individual SOMEHOW, but let there be multiple avenues for allowing individuals to seek out that training.

The important thing is that the training not be so onerous as to be a road block to exercising a right. Obviously we need a healthy court system that "gets it" so that we can make sure the training requirements aren't excessive. Else, we just have to throw open the floodgates and hope for the best in the way Vermont and Alaska does it. But, personally, I seriously rather prefer to know the people who are carrying guns around in public have some small clue as to what they're doing.

jacques
12-17-2008, 3:41 PM
People don't know who our president is, or their congresperson, they don't know what the bill of rights is, but they still go out and vote and voice their opinion at every opportunity.

bulgron
12-17-2008, 4:10 PM
People don't know who our president is, or their congresperson, they don't know what the bill of rights is, but they still go out and vote and voice their opinion at every opportunity.

Yep. And look at the mess that we as a society are currently in.

Not that I'm saying I was written tests for polling stations. Still, ignorance is apparently a terminal condition for a Constitutional Republic such as ours.

grammaton76
12-17-2008, 4:26 PM
Obviously training can't be used to disqualify the vast majority of the population or we end up with Jim Crowe laws all over again.

But there IS a intersection of personal rights versus public safety here that isn't easily answered with the way society currently is. The best answer is to make firearm safety training an exit requirement for high school.

That would solve more problems in this country than we could even possibly imagine. Starting with the sensation of almighty power the second someone touches a handgun since they've never touched one before...

The next best answer is to define a very minimum amount of training that must be met by the individual SOMEHOW, but let there be multiple avenues for allowing individuals to seek out that training.

Or require, as part of operating a range, something like CA's forced-PPT system which dealers must perform. Any public shooting range must be willing to observe a basic proficiency demonstration and mark it pass/fail. Government provides the targets as a standard form, scoring is standardized, etc.

nobody_special
12-17-2008, 5:33 PM
The next best answer is to define a very minimum amount of training that must be met by the individual SOMEHOW, but let there be multiple avenues for allowing individuals to seek out that training.
Or require, as part of operating a range, something like CA's forced-PPT system which dealers must perform. Any public shooting range must be willing to observe a basic proficiency demonstration and mark it pass/fail. Government provides the targets as a standard form, scoring is standardized, etc.
The problem with requiring some sort of proficiency test is that it will be abused. As long as it is administered by humans it is subject to corruption.

Other states have gotten along without such tests for a long time, I see no need to introduce such a requirement now.

aileron
12-17-2008, 5:59 PM
Not even the founding fathers thought people should be walking around with guns without having some clue on how they work, and how to use them safely.


Prove it.

What source do you have to make such a statement? I've never read of it. Now I'm not suggesting I'm the best read, or your wrong. But its a blanket statement I have never heard, and would appreciate you pointing it out to me where this is being stated.

Hopefully it does not come from Saul Cornell. If so... I would be extremely suspect of it.

grammaton76
12-17-2008, 6:01 PM
The problem with requiring some sort of proficiency test is that it will be abused. As long as it is administered by humans it is subject to corruption.

Other states have gotten along without such tests for a long time, I see no need to introduce such a requirement now.

Only way I can think of to abuse a strictly "rounds on paper" target test would be to alter the lighting conditions in the lane in use, introduce additonal stress, etc.

bulgron
12-17-2008, 7:08 PM
Prove it.

What source do you have to make such a statement?

I don't have time to do your research for you, but just as a jumping off point try reading the text of the 2A. Then ask yourself what "well-regulated" means. Then ask yourself how a free state is supposed to get a "well-regulated militia" if the members of said state have no freaking idea of how to use their weapons.

See also the origins of the RKBA in ancient England, and the role the development of the longbow had in the creation of the right. It is the early desire to keep the citizenry well-practiced in the usage of the longbow from which the right to arms eventually sprung, and we see echos of that desire in the 2A.

Draven
12-17-2008, 8:25 PM
Ok.

Can I see your Internet Forum Training Certificate please? and your Computer Operator Registration with the Internet Connectivity Stamp?

nobody_special
12-17-2008, 8:47 PM
Only way I can think of to abuse a strictly "rounds on paper" target test would be to alter the lighting conditions in the lane in use, introduce additonal stress, etc.
And what would happen if a new shooter couldn't get their rounds on paper? They can't take possession of their gun? That's a denial of the RKBA. This is what you call due process?

So, should we also require a literacy test before someone exercises their 1st amendment rights? How about a reading comprehension exam before voting? Maybe we should do away with the 4th amendment -- in order to avoid unreasonable seizure, you must pass the test of out-racing the police.

Once again (and I'm shocked that I have to explain this to distinguished members of this board): if you have to pass a test, pay a tax or fee, obtain a license or permit, or otherwise ask the government for permission to do something, then that is not a right. It is a privilege.

Edited to add: there are plenty of other ways to abuse a "rounds on paper" test. The easiest is to tweak the ammunition; maybe even substitute blanks. Of course, the government will define the test, and as such they could always redefine it to be arbitrarily difficult (small paper, long range, scoring etc.). As long as a test is required, it can be abused in order to deny people their rights. The slippery slope argument applies, in that the test would likely become more difficult with time, and perhaps other "rights" could eventually require a test as well.

bulgron
12-17-2008, 10:00 PM
Once again (and I'm shocked that I have to explain this to distinguished members of this board): if you have to pass a test, pay a tax or fee, obtain a license or permit, or otherwise ask the government for permission to do something, then that is not a right. It is a privilege.


Once again, you are completely ignoring the fact that unlike all other rights and privileges, there is a very serious intersection of personal right vs. public safety here. And whether you like it or not, unless we as a community figure out a way to address that intersection, the people WILL figure out a way to strip us of our personal rights in favor of protecting their public safety.

Think of it as being in a debate. You know what arguments the other side are going to make. Now, what are you going to do to head off those arguments?

And, no, taking a hard line inflexible attitude on this won't work. Hard line inflexible attitudes is one of the things that lead to Californians being largely stripped of their private right to arms, because the inflexibility lead them to a place where they were unable to defend against the public perception attacks.

nooner
12-17-2008, 10:21 PM
You're ignoring the potential collision of two rights: the right to bear arms in self defense, and the right to remain healthy and alive.In a free society you do not have the right to "remain healthy and alive". If you do then who is responsible if you are no longer healthy? Or if you are no longer alive? The government has no responsibility or duty to protect you, unless they deny you your right to self defense. However once they do that it is now a police state and no longer a free country.

If someone exercises the first right irresponsibly, they can easily interfere with someone else's enjoyment of the second.That's what the system of courts and laws are for. You've already condemned everyone as guilty before they've done anything because they have the potential to do something. Anyone can drop a bowling ball off the 15th floor and kill someone or drive over them with their car. But unless and until they do it they have done nothing wrong.

Not even the founding fathers thought people should be walking around with guns without having some clue on how they work, and how to use them safely.I disagree. Try reading some American history.

It would be better for everyone if fathers just taught their children how to use guns.I agree.

But we can't rely on that anymore.Says who? You? By what right?

What I'd like to see is our public and private schools being required to ensure children know how to use firearms responsibly before allowing them to graduate. (Kids should be able to "test out" of the class if they receive instruction from someplace other than the school.) That way, we could eliminate the need for training requirements, and therefore for licensing requirements entirely.What I'd like to see is people take responsibility for themselves and their actions. It is because we as a society no longer do and everyone has turned to the government to take care of us. That's not the governments job it is your job.

This is why we have ridiculous draconian laws.

Firearms4life
12-17-2008, 10:27 PM
One good thing that DC gets outta this is they DO get to own handguns. And i agree with the folks who mentioned training being good. Guns should be a privilege to the people who know how to use it the right way, then a right to own one.

bulgron
12-17-2008, 10:47 PM
In a free society you do not have the right to "remain healthy and alive". If you do then who is responsible if you are no longer healthy? Or if you are no longer alive? The government has no responsibility or duty to protect you, unless they deny you your right to self defense. However once they do that it is now a police state and no longer a free country.

Once again. If rights are used irresponsibly, then sooner or later the great mass of society will demand those rights be eliminated. It's just human nature.

You can deny this fundamental aspect of human nature if you want, but you do so at the risk of losing the entire ballgame.


I disagree. Try reading some American history.

Where in history did anyone ever suggest that it's okay for people to keep and bear arms without knowing what the hell they were doing with them?

One of the big reasons for the 2A was to ensure that the populace was trained in the use of arms. The founders wanted us trained. The very desire for this exists in the language of the 2A itself.

Are you seriously arguing that it's okay for people to carry arms in public, with no training, no clue as to the laws on deadly force, no regard whatsoever for the safety and well-being of the people around them?


Says who? You? By what right?


What do you mean, "by what right"? I'm merely making an observation on the behavior of society in general.

I'll bet you can go to nearly any gun range in United States on almost any day and find people there who were not taught how to use firearms by their parents. Do you dispute the basic reality of our current society?


What I'd like to see is people take responsibility for themselves and their actions. It is because we as a society no longer do and everyone has turned to the government to take care of us. That's not the governments job it is your job.

This is why we have ridiculous draconian laws.

What I want to not see is some drooling idiot wandering down the street with their firearm, "accidentally" discharging the thing, shooting some kid on the sidewalk, and screwing it up for the rest of us.

Training is a good and necessary thing. I don't care how it happens, I just want it to happen.

Runitai
12-17-2008, 11:38 PM
Fundamental rights cannot be taken away without due process of law. Unless you've stood trial and been found guilty by a jury, you retain ALL of your constitutional rights. States have no authority to infringe upon any rights guaranteed by the federal constitution (so says the 14th amendment).

That being said, I think a test and qualification similar to the shall-issue states' CCW application process would be a good thing for all handgun owners to go through, and I wouldn't be upset if said licensing (and providing proof of said licensing when requested to do so) was required when operating/transporting a firearm outside of private property. I also wouldn't be upset if this license had to be renewed periodically.

This would bring firearms in line with automobiles, socially speaking. Currently, you can buy a car without a license, never register it, and drive it all you want on private property, but as soon as you hit a public road, a cop can stop you and demand license and registration (and in some states proof of insurance) at any time. Fail to produce these documents, and your car might be impounded.

Similarly, you should be able to purchase a firearm to keep in your home with no registration or testing required whatsoever, but carrying one around or going hunting without a license should be prohibited. To me, this seems like a good balance of rights and safety, if such a thing exists.

Man, I don't want to think about what the DMV equivalent for firearms would be like. Could be awesome. Could be hell on earth.

pedro_c111
12-18-2008, 12:35 AM
I don't have time to do your research for you, but just as a jumping off point try reading the text of the 2A. Then ask yourself what "well-regulated" means. Then ask yourself how a free state is supposed to get a "well-regulated militia" if the members of said state have no freaking idea of how to use their weapons.

See also the origins of the RKBA in ancient England, and the role the development of the longbow had in the creation of the right. It is the early desire to keep the citizenry well-practiced in the usage of the longbow from which the right to arms eventually sprung, and we see echos of that desire in the 2A.

It says "well-regulated militia" not "well-regulated people", remember "the right of the people" not "the right of well-regulated people". Totally different.

nobody_special
12-18-2008, 12:50 AM
Once again, you are completely ignoring the fact that unlike all other rights and privileges, there is a very serious intersection of personal right vs. public safety here. And whether you like it or not, unless we as a community figure out a way to address that intersection, the people WILL figure out a way to strip us of our personal rights in favor of protecting their public safety.

Think of it as being in a debate. You know what arguments the other side are going to make. Now, what are you going to do to head off those arguments?
It's exactly the same argument Gura made in Heller: an enumerated Constitutional right closes certain public policy doors, regardless of politics.

There are two important aspects to fundamental rights: (1) the government cannot impede your exercise of it, and (2) you may exercise it no matter how unpopular that act may be. Neo-nazis must be allowed to obtain permits to demonstrate, but we don't repeal the 1st amendment.

And, no, taking a hard line inflexible attitude on this won't work. Hard line inflexible attitudes is one of the things that lead to Californians being largely stripped of their private right to arms, because the inflexibility lead them to a place where they were unable to defend against the public perception attacks.
California lost the RKBA because (1) it isn't in the state Constitution, and (2) there are too many clueless hypocrites in this state who hate guns but love James Bond. Most other states still have the RKBA, and many people in those states have a hard-line, inflexible attitude. So far as I know, none of them predicate the RKBA upon successful completion of a test, and most of them are less violent than California.

Compromise which consists of turning rights into privileges is a sure way to turn this country into China or Russia. I agree with the incremental approach in counterattacking, but I do not agree in capitulating the fundamental right, which is what has been proposed here.
Once again. If rights are used irresponsibly, then sooner or later the great mass of society will demand those rights be eliminated. It's just human nature.
So then it is incumbent upon experienced gun owners to organize and develop society to teach and encourage responsible gun handling. But... you can't require that someone pass a test, pay a fee, obtain a license, permit, or otherwise ask permission to exercise a right, because then it isn't a right anymore.

Simply put, what you're advocating is more gun control, which of course is really people control. But it's futile; many irresponsible people are called criminals, and we all know how difficult it is for them to get guns, right? And why should I pay the price for the irresponsible acts of other people?

Where in history did anyone ever suggest that it's okay for people to keep and bear arms without knowing what the hell they were doing with them?
That would be the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. And before you jump all over me for that... it's not "okay," it's irresponsible. But you can't arrest someone for "not knowing what the hell they're doing" unless they actually act recklessly. Either they're reckless or they're not; thoughtcrime is just a bad idea.

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right of the People to keep and bear arms; not the right of Some People who Pass the Test. Why? Because even those people who can't demonstrate competence up to some arbitrary standard still have a right to self-defense.

FortCourageArmory
12-18-2008, 8:34 AM
One of the big reasons for the 2A was to ensure that the populace was trained in the use of arms. The founders wanted us trained. The very desire for this exists in the language of the 2A itself.
Read the 2nd Amendment again:

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.

The first part says that a well-regulated militia is a very desirable thing. Therefore the people shall be allowed to keep and bear arms toward this purpose. There is no testing requirement attached to the amendment, just the opening statement. The implication is that the individual will become "well-regulated", but there is no requirement for them to do so.

Attaching proficiency requirements to the exercise of an individual right is a hugely BAD idea.

yellowfin
12-18-2008, 1:17 PM
The founders didn't see what kind of word twisting, sabotage, and outrightly evil intent the American public would put up with. It was supposed to be touch and die issue--any public official starts monkeying with our RKBA then we toss them out on the spot, no questions asked. That means ANY encroachment, let alone all the ridiculous nonsense that's here in CA or any of these talks of more. None of this "political reality" tolerant crap--you dislike RKBA then you find another job that day, period. We just haven't enforced the intent of the Constitution in over 70 years so we're not used to saying no and meaning no and having a stick on the end of it.

Glock22Fan
12-18-2008, 4:31 PM
What I want to not see is some drooling idiot wandering down the street with their firearm, "accidentally" discharging the thing, shooting some kid on the sidewalk, and screwing it up for the rest of us.

Do you believe that this is common place in those states without mandatory training?

grammaton76
12-18-2008, 10:18 PM
And what would happen if a new shooter couldn't get their rounds on paper? They can't take possession of their gun? That's a denial of the RKBA. This is what you call due process?

Where exactly was it said that the only way you can ever practice with a gun is if you own one? Because that's exactly where you seem to be going with this. Now I, for instance, rented over 20 handguns and several rifles before I settled on my first gun. I'd had zero experience with real guns from my parents, other than BB guns. I'm pretty sure I had most of my rounds on paper at the end of my first rental session.

Next up, others have observed that following the vehicle model (i.e. do whatever you want on private property) would be a logical exemption here, and this would be more of an armed in public thing. See below for that before you start going on about absolutes, we already are completely infringed upon by your definition and this wouldn't diminish anything from where we already are.

Once again (and I'm shocked that I have to explain this to distinguished members of this board): if you have to pass a test, pay a tax or fee, obtain a license or permit, or otherwise ask the government for permission to do something, then that is not a right. It is a privilege.

At present, the way things are, it is already is a privilege and not a right by your definition. Your right to guns can be removed promptly and just about permanently without trial by jury (via TRO, including made-up BS, a DV issue where the cops are convinced there was one but both of you are insisting otherwise, etc).

And consider further that, in order to purchase a handgun, you already have to get an HSC in California. Again, we're already in privilege territory in CA.

Edited to add: there are plenty of other ways to abuse a "rounds on paper" test. The easiest is to tweak the ammunition; maybe even substitute blanks.

Ok, now you're getting into territory which would require malice on the part of the test administrator. Note that at no point was a state agency proposed as the test administration source - but an FFL. If there'd be cheating on either side, it'd be in favor of passing folks in order to get more customers. While the points below are possible, the points above are thoroughly reaching.

Of course, the government will define the test, and as such they could always redefine it to be arbitrarily difficult (small paper, long range, scoring etc.). As long as a test is required, it can be abused in order to deny people their rights. The slippery slope argument applies, in that the test would likely become more difficult with time, and perhaps other "rights" could eventually require a test as well.

Yes, that could happen. Hasn't happened with vehicles, but then again no one really wants to ban cars.

bulgron
12-18-2008, 10:23 PM
Yes, that could happen. Hasn't happened with vehicles, but then again no one really wants to ban cars.

Yet. See, for example, the current hysteria on global warming. :D

nobody_special
12-19-2008, 12:07 PM
Where exactly was it said that the only way you can ever practice with a gun is if you own one? Because that's exactly where you seem to be going with this.
That's not exactly where I'm going; my point is that preconditions to exercise a right can easily and effectively be used to deny that right.

At present, the way things are, it is already is a privilege and not a right by your definition.
Absolutely! Especially in California.

I'm not new to this state, but I recently moved here after spending a few years in a "free" state, which is where I started shooting. I never had to get an HSC, register a gun, pay outrageous fees to the state upon taking possession, or suffered a waiting period. I could openly carry just about anywhere, or get a CC permit. California is completely different of course.

Heller should change all that. My enthusiastic arguments here serve a purpose; I believe it is very important that the 2nd amendment be given equal footing with other enumerated rights.

nobody_special
12-19-2008, 12:38 PM
Next up, others have observed that following the vehicle model (i.e. do whatever you want on private property) would be a logical exemption here, and this would be more of an armed in public thing. See below for that before you start going on about absolutes, we already are completely infringed upon by your definition and this wouldn't diminish anything from where we already are.
I wanted to address this separately. I believe the vehicle analogy is flawed.

First, there is no enumerated right to drive. I believe there is an implicit common-law right to travel, and I further believe that right has been systematically infringed upon over the past century, much like the RKBA.

Second, the right to bear arms historically was not restricted to private property. Other enumerated rights are similarly unrestricted; as I have argued in other threads, a permit may be required AFAIK only insofar as one is exclusively taking or using public property, thereby denying the use of that property to others. That's reasonable because a parade or protest will block a street or sidewalk, and that blockage denies others the right to use that avenue. But the 1st amendment does protect public speech; I can stand on a street corner and shout my message so long as I don't block traffic.

Let's look at the right of the press, for example. The 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to set up a giant printing press in a public park (denying that space to the public). But the 1st amendment protects the right to distribute pamphlets, and I doubt a court would allow a permit to be required if someone were printing and distributing pamphlets in a park using a small portable printer.

I agree that the RKBA is essentially completely infringed in California. But Heller points at things to come, and with a decision coming in Nordyke, I think it's important to reflect upon what enumerated rights mean. Once incorporation happens, we should not accept less.

Runitai
12-19-2008, 1:02 PM
I wanted to address this separately. I believe the vehicle analogy is flawed.

First, there is no enumerated right to drive. I believe there is an implicit common-law right to travel, and I further believe that right has been systematically infringed upon over the past century, much like the RKBA. ...

Agreed completely, but this kind of idealism, although legally well founded, isn't politically palpable currently. Of course, the ideal is to have the RKBA respected as fully as free speech, but we've got a long way to go before we get there. Sudden, drastic change is frightening and dangerous. The vehicle analogy is merely a step in the right direction.

BTW: Living in San Francisco and owning a car, it's clear that the local government here doesn't want people to drive, either, but that's a topic for another forum.

nobody_special
12-19-2008, 3:24 PM
Agreed completely, but this kind of idealism, although legally well founded, isn't politically palpable currently. Of course, the ideal is to have the RKBA respected as fully as free speech, but we've got a long way to go before we get there. Sudden, drastic change is frightening and dangerous.
Again, I agree with a "take it slow" approach; but in incrementally attacking existing restrictions, we should be very careful to not compromise in such a way that will forfeit important aspects of the right later.

CapS
12-24-2008, 12:48 PM
Remember that the Constitution did not establish any right. As someone's sig here points out, the Constitution is a document which limits the power of government.

The Bill of Rights was added to that document by those men who feared exactly what has come to pass: that government would arrogate to itself more and more power.

The idea that government is entitled to restrain any of us in any way from a free exercise of these rights (and others not enumerated) is repugnant and insidious.

/Cap