Training Before Obtaining Carry Permit?
- Thread starter maddog995
- Start date
I remember a story about a guy that tried to drive up to Tennessee and do a citizens arrest on some politician and get arrested crossing the state line because he made a giant stink about what he was going to do on social media. If you don't remember that you should look into it. Didn't work out well for him if I remember correctly. Not the same guy are you?
just learn your constitution & case laws that proves your case people every where are starting to see the truth. & sorry it's not a citizens arrest & like i said you have to live in that county & present the proof of treason to the sherif of your county, thats how it work but all you people want to do is try to make me look ignorant because you believe the lie & are too busy working & seeking entertainment & just don't care. so just fall in line with the rest of the slaves.
The oath of office,
too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:
"I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."
"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The rule must be discharged.” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall
The oath of office,
too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:
"I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."
"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The rule must be discharged.” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall
Yet they don’t want to here it or believe it, even if you post fact’s & proof of where the facts came from they are hateful & make fun of the truth as they delight in the illusion of the false hood of their belief’s. maybe it’s just laziness or even stupidity when they don’t read the post completely or understand.
I'm bumping this thread because on a thread about choosing the "perfect" carry pistol, the last few pages have migrated to the value of training and then to proposals for mandatory training to get a weapons carry permit. Here's my current take on mandatory training:
** EDITED down, my prior post was too long **
1.) I think it would have value and make our state safer. Whether the degree of enhanced safety is "worth it" when we're putting up another obstacle people have to clear in order to legally carry is something to consider, though. That's more of a public policy choice than a matter of constitutional law, though.
2.) Because some people don't think they need a carry permit until they're suddenly faced with a stalker, threatening ex-lover, or a serial killer or serial rapist on the prowl in their neighborhood, I think people should be able to get a temporary carry permit FIRST, and FAST (within 24 hours; with either no training or maybe just watching a 30-minute video online from any computer anywhere with internet access (including the public library) and then answering some questions to prove you were paying attention).
BUT THEN, they should have to get the full GWL as we know it, with a 3-page application, fingerprint-based background check (the temp license could be issued with just a criminal history check based on name, DOB, and SSN). That "full GWL" could be the one that requires completion of a more substantive training class that might involve hands-on demonstrations of safe and competent gun carry, aiming, and firing.
3.) Finally, I suggest that anybody above a certain age or anybody who will self-certify as having a physical disability that interferes with aiming and firing a handgun with great accuracy can be excused from having to PASS (with some minimum score) the shooting test, BUT they'll still have to take it and do the best they can. If they can only get 30% of the perfect score for the qualification, due to their disability or age, FINE, let them obtain their carry permit anyway, but at least by having taken the test and seen their dismal score they will be FACED with the REALITY that, at this time, they're not very good. They will be less likely to over-estimate their gun-handling abilities and take a risky shot that might endanger innocents, if they know that they can barely hit a barn door at 5 yards.
** EDITED down, my prior post was too long **
1.) I think it would have value and make our state safer. Whether the degree of enhanced safety is "worth it" when we're putting up another obstacle people have to clear in order to legally carry is something to consider, though. That's more of a public policy choice than a matter of constitutional law, though.
2.) Because some people don't think they need a carry permit until they're suddenly faced with a stalker, threatening ex-lover, or a serial killer or serial rapist on the prowl in their neighborhood, I think people should be able to get a temporary carry permit FIRST, and FAST (within 24 hours; with either no training or maybe just watching a 30-minute video online from any computer anywhere with internet access (including the public library) and then answering some questions to prove you were paying attention).
BUT THEN, they should have to get the full GWL as we know it, with a 3-page application, fingerprint-based background check (the temp license could be issued with just a criminal history check based on name, DOB, and SSN). That "full GWL" could be the one that requires completion of a more substantive training class that might involve hands-on demonstrations of safe and competent gun carry, aiming, and firing.
3.) Finally, I suggest that anybody above a certain age or anybody who will self-certify as having a physical disability that interferes with aiming and firing a handgun with great accuracy can be excused from having to PASS (with some minimum score) the shooting test, BUT they'll still have to take it and do the best they can. If they can only get 30% of the perfect score for the qualification, due to their disability or age, FINE, let them obtain their carry permit anyway, but at least by having taken the test and seen their dismal score they will be FACED with the REALITY that, at this time, they're not very good. They will be less likely to over-estimate their gun-handling abilities and take a risky shot that might endanger innocents, if they know that they can barely hit a barn door at 5 yards.
I would not have a "one size fits all" qualification shoot, demanding that young, fit, athletic people achieve the same score or do all the same movements (kneeling, ducking behind barricades, drawing from concealment) as I'd require for old folks and people with disabilities.
What's reasonable for this kind of person:
Would not be reasonable to expect of this grandma:
And even an old lady with (I assume) a lot of physical issues can still
use a handgun effectively when an attacker is climbing in her window
or has just kicked-in her door and is coming at her from just several
feet of distance.
What's reasonable for this kind of person:
Would not be reasonable to expect of this grandma:
And even an old lady with (I assume) a lot of physical issues can still
use a handgun effectively when an attacker is climbing in her window
or has just kicked-in her door and is coming at her from just several
feet of distance.
I think classes in basic gun safety, responsibility, and law should be taught in school.
However I am apposed to mandatory classes for a permit. Too much room for the “next” group of leaders to impose their will on 2A people.
They’ve already stated they would be willing to go after ammo, manufacturers, acccesories and pretty much anything associated with anything gun related.
I don’t want to give them another avenue to restrict rights.
However I am apposed to mandatory classes for a permit. Too much room for the “next” group of leaders to impose their will on 2A people.
They’ve already stated they would be willing to go after ammo, manufacturers, acccesories and pretty much anything associated with anything gun related.
I don’t want to give them another avenue to restrict rights.
I agree that in theory, any training requirement could be used as a backdoor assault on weapons carry by government officials who want to discourage armed citizens.
But, in REAL-LIFE, has that ever been their approach anywhere? As contrasted to just flat-out making certain guns illegal based on their characteristics, or making certain people ineligible to own a gun, or requiring a more thorough background check (adding personal and work references, etc?)
New York State is about as anti-gun as you can imagine. They don't recognize individual self-defense against crime as a legit reason to have a handgun permit (unless you've already been the subject of confirmed death threats or face extra-high odds of being robbed or kidnapped because of your job or the political offices you hold). They banned assault type semi-autos almost 30 years ago. They tried to limit all magazines to 7 rounds, which the courts threw out and said you could have up to 10, but no higher than that. New York State's governor is a gun-hating Stalinist who led the campaign for states to sue gun companies for the costs associated with gun crime and treating gunshot victims...
... and yet New York State's mandatory training requirement is not much more involved that Georgia's hunter safety course. It's short and simple. It doesn't even require shooting a real gun at a range; it could be done with prop guns, dummies whose actions can be opened and triggers manipulated like real guns, or BB/ pellet pistols, or AirSoft guns. There is a hands-on component, but it could be done in an office environment, even a suite at the local mall.
Does anybody know of any state, or nation, that has made unreasonable changes to the standards for a carry permit qualification test as a backdoor method of infringing on the carry rights of otherwise-qualified people?
But, in REAL-LIFE, has that ever been their approach anywhere? As contrasted to just flat-out making certain guns illegal based on their characteristics, or making certain people ineligible to own a gun, or requiring a more thorough background check (adding personal and work references, etc?)
New York State is about as anti-gun as you can imagine. They don't recognize individual self-defense against crime as a legit reason to have a handgun permit (unless you've already been the subject of confirmed death threats or face extra-high odds of being robbed or kidnapped because of your job or the political offices you hold). They banned assault type semi-autos almost 30 years ago. They tried to limit all magazines to 7 rounds, which the courts threw out and said you could have up to 10, but no higher than that. New York State's governor is a gun-hating Stalinist who led the campaign for states to sue gun companies for the costs associated with gun crime and treating gunshot victims...
... and yet New York State's mandatory training requirement is not much more involved that Georgia's hunter safety course. It's short and simple. It doesn't even require shooting a real gun at a range; it could be done with prop guns, dummies whose actions can be opened and triggers manipulated like real guns, or BB/ pellet pistols, or AirSoft guns. There is a hands-on component, but it could be done in an office environment, even a suite at the local mall.
Does anybody know of any state, or nation, that has made unreasonable changes to the standards for a carry permit qualification test as a backdoor method of infringing on the carry rights of otherwise-qualified people?
