My CCW class LOL

[Brass Balls]

I agree that it would be preferable to see a modicum of proficiency when people are handling guns. However an additional exam or required training doesn't pass the little old lady test so I can't support it.

The little old lady test is this; a little old lady lives alone, there have been a rash of home invasions in her neighborhood, yet the culprits are still at large. Last night, at 0300, she awoke to a huge noise and quickly realized someone, probably a group, was trying to bash in her front door, she was frightened beyond belief and felt completely vulnerable and helpless. To her good fortune, for some unexplained reason, the battering stopped.

Today she wants to go and purchase a firearm for defense. If she has no criminal background it is my opinion that she should be able to AND to bring it home with her the same day. If she is smart she will get some instruction from the gun store employee on how to load and fire. If she is lucky she will get some good advice on weapon selection.

Regardless it should be her right as an American citizen in good standing to buy a gun and protect herself.

[12gaugederringer]

Little old lady test or teenage stoner test, at the some point there is a cuttoff that reasonable people agree someone shouldn't possess a firearm. I'm not proposingthe specific cutoff but I think we should have that discussion. In response to the 'too bad guns are so cheap argument', I don't think this is the problem. Prejudice based on economic status, age or geographic location is the reason we need a clear licensing system based on an understanding of safety and a demonstration of proficiency.

[1911su16b870]

IIRC the CA CCW application mentions 16-hours of training required. If 50% of the time was in live fire, those bugs will be worked out. Problem is most of those folks will not make it back out to the range during the 5 years of CCW validity.

[Brass Balls]

IIRC the CA CCW application mentions 16-hours of training required. If 50% of the time was in live fire, those bugs will be worked out. Problem is most of those folks will not make it back out to the range during the 5 years of CCW validity.

I think 10-15% is more common, maybe less. fwiw a CA CCW permit, for a regular non judiciary citizen, is only good for 2 years.

[leelaw]

I can't believe I need to say this to people who claim to believe in the Second Amendment: What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

[Mssr. Eleganté]

I can't believe I need to say this to people who claim to believe in the Second Amendment: What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

I don't know, maybe they are right. Maybe we should have to pass a government administered test before we get any of our Constitutional rights.

There could be required psychological testing before we are allowed to attend a church of our choice, to make sure we are not one of the few people likely to become a dangerous religious fanatic.

We could have Fourth Amendment "pre-screening". Everybody has to submit to an exhaustive search of their home by the police. If you are clean then the cops could issue you a Fourth Amendment window sticker that lets other cops know that your house is Fourth Amendment certified and will require a warrant to search.

[mumbleypeg]

Part of Arizona's permit application process requires safety instruction. Most states require the same. In many cases the curriculum is the NRA basic handgun course.

Some states require a qualification course of fire. In some cases this is timed. Most states time requirements are generous enough that if needed, you could manually unload and reload your firearm and complete the course of fire within the time requirement. If you don't know the manual of arms for your weapon this will prevent qualification.

We have the right to keep and bear. We have the obligation, the responsibility to train.

[Brass Balls]

Little old lady test or teenage stoner test, at the some point there is a cuttoff that reasonable people agree someone shouldn't possess a firearm.

Respectfully, the answer, imho, is not to layer on more restrictions. There are already restrictions in place against drug users, felons, domestic violence offenses, mental incompetency and buying the gun for someone else.

There is even a restriction against a buyer who has a restraining order against them and getting a restraining order involves no due process, which is why I don't agree with this restriction.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/

What more could you want?

[rkt88edmo]

Well, that sounds an awful lot like the current CA setup, show how to load and unload safely for handguns, plus the HSC test.

Instead of carrying around a paper which can be forged and which allows the government to track who almost certainly has guns, you could require every purchase to include a safety check. I think it would be hard to control; who administers the test, and how do you certify them? How do you even enforce requiring the test before purchase? But it would be nice to get away from the licensing bureaucracy altogether.

Too bad guns are so simple and so cheap; people would buy a gun and open carry just to show off, but I can't imagine anyone buying a car just to park it in their driveway without knowing how to use it. Plus, a car requires more skill to be useful: you have to know how to park, reverse, and especially follow traffic laws.

[U2BassAce]

I had to take a beg handgun class before I could take some combat classes. Actually it was a lot of fun. But anyway there was one guy in the class that scared the S out of me. He was two people down from me on the firing line. It is hard to shoot with one eye on your target and one on a person down from you! LOL

At least he was taking the class. So I give him credit. But even then I am not sure how much soaked in. Some people are just like that. They don't get "it" if you know what I mean.

[jdberger]

Just a means of showing you have passed some minimal test on gun safety and aren't likely to load a magazine backwards. Even issue tickets for infractions like carrying with the safety off and a round chambered.

You're not really serious about this, are ya?

So I couldn't play James Bond and carry my PPK without the safety on?

Steele: Sergeant, what's the meaning of this?
[Thinking he's talking about the unauthorized pig picking]
"Hoot": Just a little aerial target practice, sir. Didn't want to leave 'em behind.
Steele: I'm talking about your weapon, soldier. Now Delta or no-Delta, that's still a hot weapon. Your safety should be on at all times.
"Hoot": This is my safety, sir.
[He holds up his index finger and bends motions as if squeezing a trigger and then walks off]
Sanderson: Let it alone, sir. He hasn't eaten in a few days.

[Scarecrow Repair]

More thoughts on the absurdity of absolute 2A rights

I just finished a long drive and had plenty of time to think about carrying the "absolute" RKBA to its absurd limits.

So, what part of "The right to keep and bear arms" don't I understand? In practical terms, it is obvious as can be. In absolute terms, it is pretty much incomprehensible.

For instance, it says keep, not obtain, sell, give away, or anything except keep. If you got 'em, keep 'em, but don't give them away, sell them, or in any other way cease to keep them. If Sacramento or the feds were to ban sales of arms tomorrow, methinks that would be legal. In fact, one could argue that any such law should be beloved and sought after by RKBA purists, since it would merely help enforce strict interpretation. Where is the NRA when you really need it?

What happens when a bad guy is using a gun to commit crimes? Let's say he is shooting people left right and center. Are the cops allowed to shoot him? Seems to me you could easily argue that anything short of death is depriving him of his right to bear arms. If he has to drop his weapons because you shot up his arm or hand, you just deprived him of that absolute right. You have to arrest him, put him in jail, put him on trial, and incarcerate him for 50-life, all with him still allowed to keep and bear his arms. Even if you try to wiggle out of your absolutist camp by bringing up due process, you still have to warn him thru some sort of legal process. If shouting "Stop!" were sufficient due process, they could just shout "Drop!" and you'd have to surrender your guns. How many of you think that would be enough due process, hmmm?

Many states now have laws against driving while talking on cell phones unless they are hands free. What about some yeabob driving down the highway with a gun in each hand, practicing tricky twirling or even shooting rabbits alongside the road? Is that legal? Is it even close to proper to deprive him of a basic constitutional right just because he is driving?

Heck, is shooting allowed? Shooting isn't the only thing you can do with guns, after all. Keep and bear could easily be construed as assuming it concerns collectors or wannabe cowboys or mall ninjas.

And there's the age old debate about what arms means --- several recent threads have said an amusing outcome of Parker and Miller is that we would ONLY be allowed to keep military weapons, ie M-16s, not AR-15s or even bolt action hunting rifles unless the military also used them. So much for BB guns!

So all you absolutists out there, go ahead and explain to me how you can ignore absolutism as stated above and still be an absolutist. You can't be 99.9% absolute any more than you can be 99.9% pregnant, and it makes about as much sense as the Anarchists' Union of the Spanish Civil War. When you can do that, then you will have the moral authority to tell us backsliders to stop discussing how to keep loonies and criminals from getting guns legally.

Don't tell me I am being too clever by half. If you can't explain away these conundrums, if all you do is tell me I am being absurd, then you haven't done squat to explain why you would not draw a line in the sand between absolute purist and not-quite-absolute backsliding communist libtard defeatokrat.

Once you admit there's a line to be drawn, the battle for absolute purity is over, and you have lost.

[12gaugederringer]

How does a license defacto infringe on your rights? All I am saying is that if we agree certain people can lose their right, whether it be a felon or a five year old a license can be a strong deterent as long as it is constitutional in its scope. In today's faceless world positive identification needs to be shown everywhere because we have allowed society to fall into a state of complete irresponsibility. Personal responsibility is an idea lost by much of our nation today, while personal freedom is something most fully embrace. The problem is that they both go hand in hand. Requiring individuals to understand basic firearm responsibility seems as important as defending their right to keep and bear arms.

Secondly, how is requiring a license to bear arms any different than requiring one to keep arms? We need to wipe this ridiculous notion that keep and bear are not one and the same. Restrictions on the bearing of arms in a society that allows citizens to keep arms is suicide for all.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Restrictions on our Constitutional rights need to be reasonable. Courts have found that restricting the rights of violent criminals to vote or own firearms is reasonable. They have also found that restricting the rights of law abiding stupid people and law abiding crippled people to be unreasonable.

Could a one armed man easily pass a safe handling demonstration? Could a blind man pass a live fire marksmanship qualification? Could an illiterate person pass a written safety test?

Should these law abiding folks be stripped of their rights because they are not as smart or healthy as the "average" American?

[12gaugederringer]

As Scarecrow has laid out it is obvious that the second ammendment can not be read in the context of a vacuum. I would conjecture that the framers did not mean that I can walk through times square with a handgun picking off pigeons. I would think that the framers meant I can take a handgun to times square for my and my fellow citizen's defense, provided I am of sound mind and don't have a history of recklessness or violence. "Who's to say if I'm of sound mind,or reckless? We can't allow the government to make that decision!!!" Well then who is? Communites are not what they were in the 1700s. Who in today's world of don't judge me and whatever goes goes can identify the sound of mind from the insane. That's why I feel it is fine to require someone take some instruction on safe handiling and responsible use while issuing a license based on criminal background.