Firearms Food for Thought: Concealed Carry Requirements

DSCF2349

The requirements vary by state. In Washington State you simply visit your local police department and fill out a form, give them your fingerprints, pay a fee, and wait for the results of a background check. If you pass, you get your CPL (Concealed Pistol License). When your CPL arrives it’s just a piece of paper with type-written information listed, so if you want it to survive for five years you need to laminate it yourself. In Kentucky you do paperwork and also must take a class, part of which takes place in a classroom and part on a range. You show proof of having passed said class to the sheriff’s office, which may be some distance from your home. When (if) you get your CCDW, Concealed Carry Deadly Weapons license, it’s in the form of a hard card not unlike a driver’s license, complete with full-color photo. In Wisconsin…well, you get the idea. The requirements vary by state with some requiring a class – or proof of successful completion of hunter’s education – and some requiring only the background check. They even have different titles in different states. Reciprocity varies widely. If you’re moving or traveling, you’d better know the laws in each and every place you will cross.

P1014385

So what’s the question? It’s actually a multi-faceted question. Do you think there should be a nation-wide standard for the requirements for getting your concealed carry permit? Even better, do you think there should be – forgive the humor – one card to rule them all? As in, a national concealed carry permit rather than state-specific permits. Ignore the political ramifications. This is not a political discussion, this is a discussion regarding details such whether or not some sort of training should be required for a permit. And if so, whether or not it should be the exact same training in every state.

Colonel Jeff Cooper once said the first rule of a gunfight is to have a gun. I happen to agree with that sentiment which makes it quite painful to be denied my legally-obtained firearm in states where I either have no permit or no reciprocity.

What do you think?

ringone



katie.ainsworth

Katie is an avid shooter, hunter, military journalist, and Southern girl. Firearms are her passion whether at the range or on a spot-and-stalk after a big buck. She’s a staff writer at The Firearm Blog and writes about guns, hunting, and the military for various publications both online and in print such as Outdoor Life, Handguns, and Shooting Illustrated. Shoot her a message at ainsworth.kat@usa.com


Advertisement

  • tyrannyofevilmen

    I actually believe in Constitutional carry. I think licensing someone to exercise a fundamental constitutional right is nonsense.

    If we were going to do such a thing though, we should go all in: Mandatory training and writing tests for journalists, background checks for folks who want to exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies…

    See how ridiculous that would be?

    • Nashvone

      “I actually believe in Constitutional carry. I think licensing someone to
      exercise a fundamental constitutional right is nonsense.”

      I agree with you on both points. The reason I believe classes (not licensing) should be required is what happens AFTER you shoot someone in self defense. Knowing what the legal process is going to be like is important. It’s also important to hear how some people have reacted after going through the process. A great friend and shooting buddy teaches concealed carry classes and he always brings in people that have pulled and fired. One of them still has trouble with the fact that he took someone’s life even though the only other option was to lose his own. It’s one of those things that no one can say how they’re going to react until they have been put in that situation.

      • tyrannyofevilmen

        Thanks. Training when and how to effectively use a firearm under stress and having information about the likely legal and emotional aftermath is of course a very good idea. Fortunately, there are many schools across the country where you can learn what you need to know.

        The problem with state mandated training is that you have turned a right into a privilege and you have opened the door to a very slippery slope where an anti-liberty politician can decide if and when you can defend yourself and how much you will pay for the priveledge.

        In extreme cases, the waiting periods, approvals, and administrative hurdles to get a carry permit can actually get you killed as has happened in New Jersey and other highly restrictive states.

        Personally, I take at least one firearms training class every year. But on the other hand, I also believe that it would be a pretty good idea if everyone took a defensive driving class now and again. I think I could prove that such a requirement would likely reduce insurance costs, and the frequency and severity of car crashes. Even so, as far as I know there is not one state in the union that requires this in order to maintain your driving privilege. Therefore in my opinion it would make no sense to require classes to maintain a constitutionally protected right.

      • politicsbyothermeans

        Sounds like we have the first addition to Common Core we can all probably agree on, no? Kids used to learn how to shoot in plenty of schools when my paps was in in short pants.

        If there is something everyone needs to know in order to function as a member of our polite society, start them young. Those that enjoy learning about firearms will seek out more and could take a concealed carry course as an elective in high school.

      • MontieR

        A licence to excercise a constitutional right is not just nonsense it is an illegal act.

    • Major Tom

      I use the same logic in debates with anti-gun folks. Their reactions are priceless as they twist and turn their faces, brains and tongues into pretzels as they try (and usually fail) to differentiate how things like freedom of the press are somehow not obsolete or dangerous and thus not requiring restrictions while the 2A is.

      With a word you can start a riot in a city and cause millions of dollars in damages. That’s freedom of speech. With but a newspaper article you can start a needless war. That’s freedom of the press. (And more or less what started off the route to the Spanish-American War in 1898.) With a belief in God or Allah or what have you, you can spark any of the previous or even more. That’s freedom of religion.

      Yet we take the good with the bad one those rights, what makes the gun different? That’s why I support maximum liberty on any right be it speech, guns, God or yes even the media as unprofessional and stupid they act sometimes.

      • Cymond

        I debated with a woman who supports every imaginable form of gun control (background checks, waiting periods, registration, mag limits, etc), yet thinks it’s unconstitutional to require ID to vote.
        While a single vote has little power, the outcomes of elections have killed a lot of people.

        • Major Tom

          Indeed. People all too often forget Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power by way of the vote. And that’s not a unique story in the grand game of History.

      • Pseudo

        Inciting a riot is not legal, protected speech. Invoking freedom of the press does not shield individuals from, say, libel. I mostly agree with the most recent precedent from SCOTUS that the government cannot restrict access to firearms unless it presents a compelling case that it is significantly in the public interest. If you ask the vast majority of people in this country if individuals who have been served a restraining order should be allowed to have firearms, their answer will be no. The government is already restricting that individual’s right to move freely and limiting their speech because it has been presented with a legally compelling argument that the individual poses a risk to the party protected by the order. We live in a society in which not everything is black and white. I see universal carry requirements as a step towards border-less, universal concealed carry. I’ll jump through your hoops, demonstrate basic competency and that I’m not a threat to general society. In turn, let me carry wherever I go. I’m in Georgia and our House just passed a campus carry bill. I work on a college campus here and was discussing this last night with my colleagues. Those who oppose the bill don’t like the idea of random people with no qualifications being armed. They grant that they wouldn’t mind if I were carrying (or at least that’s what they say to my face ^^) because they know that I’m a competent, responsible individual. GA CCPs require nothing other than not being a felon. If there were universal (more stringent than GA’s) requirements, people like my colleagues would be less weary concealed weapons on campus. I always find these discussions frustrating, because the hardline argument of no restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever actually decrease the likelihood of expansion of some gun rights as in the abolition of useless/counterproductive “gun free zones” and arbitrary restrictions on the ownership and use of suppressors. I’ve not met a single person that I cannot convince of the ludicrousness of our suppressor laws through rational conversation. I guarantee you that the vast majority of them wouldn’t have given me the time of day if my argument were “any restriction on my gun rights are a constitutional violation.”

        • Major Tom

          “Inciting a riot is not legal, protected speech.”

          Yet how many allegedly peaceful protests, demonstrations, marches and rallies (all forms of which are protected speech) have turned into riots? Ferguson Missouri last year is one of the more recent cases.

          “Invoking freedom of the press does not shield individuals from, say, libel.”

          Has there been any successful use of the libel and slander labels in the last 100 years? Last I checked, the libel/slander defense against speech has been effectively neutered, destroyed by court precedent.

          And I’m not talking cases like that either. Ever heard of “yellow journalism”? The line “You provide the pictures, I’ll provide the war.”? That’s the Spanish-American War in a nutshell. The whole thing started by what today would be tabloid journalists claiming there’s a rebellion against the Spanish in Cuba by the “noble” Cuban people and calling on the US Government to invoke the Monroe Doctrine and intervene on behalf of the Cubans.

          No such thing was happening, it was pretty much all made up. Yet it got enough attention to merit President William McKinley to send the battleship USS Maine to Havana where well…crack open a history book you’ll learn what comes next.

          Modern day sensationalist journalism by the likes of CNN, Fox News, ABC and everyone else is the successor to yellow journalism of the late 19th century. Yet it’s protected under Constitutional precedent. Sensationalist journalism got us into Libya and Syria when we really didn’t have much if any reason to be there in any capacity.

          If Hanoi Jane Fonda pulling that stunt sitting in a North Vietnamese Army anti-aircraft gun in the height of the Vietnam War is protected speech and protected journalism then my right to call up Kalashnikov Concern and import a fully automatic AK-74M from them should be protected as well.

          But yet Ms. Fonda providing propaganda aid to the NVA is somehow neither treasonous nor illegal yet my desire to have a fully automatic Russian assault rifle for purposes of blasting stacks of Coke cans out in the woods should be illegal?

        • yessah3

          I agree on many fronts, but would also argue that legislating safety is a slippery slope. At what point is it “infringing” on someone’s right to own or carry a weapon. Tort law and its craziness is why we have so many warnings. Stupid people do stupid things, and warnings, and yes, even training won’t change that. Same reason why the state I live in Maine, voted recently to allow “constitutional carry” instead of requiring a concealed weapons permit. The idea that you have to spend money, although not much, take the time to have pictures done, mail it in, and have to worry about having that card on you, etc… is viewed as infringing against your constitutional rights. Still amazed it passed. I lived in Mass and let me tell you, getting a concealed permit there is near impossible. You have to live in a town where the chief is pro gun/concealed carry. If not…oh well. Not too many towns hand them out. You can even own a business in a dangerous part of town and need to make deposits of cash every now and then and not have what they deem a legitimate reason to conceal carry. In Mass there are only two permits for handguns, handgun permit and concealed carry. The handgun permit just allows you to purchase a handgun and take it to and from a range, unloaded and out of your reach. You still need an FID card for a long rifle. In Maine, 18 and you can get whatever you want without needing permission.

    • Rustle Wiltson

      Constitutional carry or bust.

      • Len Jones

        You have to do the test and gun handling because some people never have handled a gun, the background check will cull out some people that shouldn’t have guns you have to be reasonable and the carry permit is good in all states that should happen.

        • Rustle Wiltson

          Which part of curtailing an unalienable right is reasonable?

          I’m all for training but not for mandates. We need volunteer groups to train people or even Government sponsored training. Its our duty to instill a healthy respect for gun safety and ownership and although it requires some overtime on our part, I will gladly oblige.

          Imagine if all the money used to demonize gun ownership was transformed into benign programs utilized to foster a greater sense of responsibility.

          The same attitude should be applied to civic duty as well. Look what has happened to our country because we chose to divest our interest in our duty as an informed citizenry. Just as it took a severe threat to our gun rights to collectively become informed and active, the same phenomenon is occurring in every facet of our lives as American citizens.

          Enough is enough.

          I hate to butcher Jeffersons quotes, but I whole heartedly agree with his notion of –

          I prefer dangerous liberty to peaceful servitude.

          • yessah3

            I will pose this question to you as although I agree with the idea of training and like to think it will save lives, I don’t think many people treat and handle guns respecting how deadly they are, even trained people. Can you train stupid people to no longer be stupid? or even this, Even highly trained individuals can do stupid things so what is the point of legislating? I am all for public safety, but I just get the sense that all the training in the world won’t make many of the idiots who accidentally shoot themselves or someone else not be reckless. For instance, I remember a story of a cop who actually hung his colt 45 on a coat hook in a bathroom stall while he was taking a dump. It went off, and then repeatedly went off a few more times. LOL! Funny, but would you not say cops are far more trained than your average gun owner. You don’t need a license to have a kid. It is a right, just like owning a gun, and I would say bad parenting leads to more deaths by suicides, drug overdoses or creating sociopaths and murderers than gun deaths. I think some people have a respectful appreciation for the dangers a gun presents and others don’t. Darwin award type stuff and all.

          • Rustle Wiltson

            Well then I would say based on your logic that we need a fascist government to ensure that idiots aren’t so widespread. I’m not a libertarian because I truly believe as you do, that there are too many idiots out there that aren’t equipped for self-governance.

            Hell, Eugenics doesn’t sound mortally upright, but it beats our current egalitarian system of dysgenics.

            Either we go all the way with Jeffersonian libertarianism and grant all these unalienable rights and promote rampant individualism and continue our match towards a brave new world or we go full fascist and restore the old, hierarchical order that the radical liberals of their day( the founders) shunned in order to jumpstart this “great experiment.”

            For me personally, America died long ago, its fate permanently sealed at the end of the civil war. I’m a proponent of the Butler plan, but aside from that, well, might as well enjoy the ride.

          • yessah3

            I guess I would say that I am a libertarian. People have rights…even stupid ones, and the government should not be in the business of deciding who is stupid and who isn’t as it is subjective. I think of the quote by George Carlin….”Think of how stupid the average American is….now realize that half of Americans are even dumber than that.” In the end, yes accidents will happen, and for the most parts the stupid and careless will be the cause the great majority of the time. Would the founding fathers have been OK with the government requiring training of a rifle before ownership?

          • Rustle Wiltson

            That’s tricky territory. From my understanding, the Founders expected us to always be vigilant and educated. While they chose a system of representatives the Founders nevertheless sought to instill upon their progeny a sense of sacred duty to Country.

            How many people that you know could even correctly define our form of Government? The vast majority of people think the US is a democracy.

            The egalitarian experiment has gone about as good as any British loyalist could have assumed circa late 16th century. Our system is at its inevitable end. As James Madison, the man who drafted the Constitition himself once said

            -” There never existed a democracy that did not soon exhaust and murder itsself.”

          • yessah3

            Really, you think the average American is dumb now, they were even dumber then. Education, at least higher education was far less attainable for the middle class and poor back then. I think the founding fathers new that, which is why our system has representatives, the electoral college and term limits as the people can’t be trusted to make smart decisions. Now bearing all that in mind, they gave us the right to bear arms and stated specifically that it shall not be infringed. I see useless government safety training on guns as infringing. What other amendment requires training? I like what another poster stated in regards to freedom of speech. Do we require training on speaking in order for people to exercise their freedom of speech. Infringe is a pretty basic term that means today what it meant long ago…by requiring anything for a basic right as the second amendment is, by definition, is infringing.

          • Rustle Wiltson

            I never stated that training should be mandatory. I recommended a volunteer civilian and government programs. It should all be free and widespread nevertheless.

            And people might be more “educated”, but their minds are filled with indoctrination and utter nonsense. Thomas Jefferson said that the man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. Our textbooks are advanced newspapers of ZOG indoctrination.

            If we’re going to be in a society that values rampant individualism and maximum liberties, let us not be lukewarm. One of our founders, Tench coxe, said that “the sword and every terrible implement of the soldier is an American birthright.”

            That means pretty much everything, which I agree with. Machine guns, tanks, rpg’s, stingers…

            You have to take into consideration that the founding fathers had every intention of creating a country for “free white persons only” (1791 immigration act).

            The vast majority of non-whites don’t share the same regard for liberty as our people have since at least 1215. They are incapable of successfully running the country as the Founders intended. Never before has an asian, hispanic or black country been founded on personal liberty.

            In my opinion, forced multiculturalism has wrecked any chance to continue on the path the Founding Fathers sacrificed so much for us to inherit. We’ve sold our children down the river. White children are already a minority in schools nationwide. By 2042 whites will be a minority in the USSA and by 2100 there will be no whites left in great numbers on the entire North American continent.

            If you actually cared about the Republic, you would clearly understand the dire straights we are in and how we’re so far off the path that our chances of survival are dwindling day by day.

          • yessah3

            I don’t think it is bad for a culture to change. But our rights should not. Adding more rights in as we did for minorities is not a bad thing. I agree that our culture is changing for the negative based on white guilt. If we want a culture that is not racist, we should strive to treat each citizen, black or white as equals. It seems singling out blacks for special treatment is just as wrong as what was done to blacks 50 or more years ago. We need to be color blind. Over time, generations will change the rest to where everyone is truly equal.

          • Rustle Wiltson

            Apparently you haven’t studied history in an adequate manner. Equality does not exist within the natural world. When Jefferson wrote all men are created equal, he meant created equal UNDER THE LAW. They certainly had no aversion to labeling blacks as 3/5 a person!

            The philosophies of the founders are solely and uniquely eurocentric ideals. No other civilization, despite its greatness (China, Japan. Etc.) had ever sought fit to instill a policy of individual liberty. We evolved over thousands of years in separate hemispheres. We have different inclinations and dispositions.

            Blacks especially need perhaps 2,000 years to catch up to our level of innovation. Do you not understand that their evolutionary stage was the stone age when we made contact with them?

            No written language, no philosophy, no seaworthy ships, no high art or culture, no architecture, no knowledge or discovery of the wheel, no iron or bronze axes.

            Its simply astounding how much reverence our community has for the Founding Fathers yet when it comes to their racial perspectives, somehow they were wrong?

            We have enough issues without having to deal with racial strife.

            No one ever says China,Japan,Korea,Turkey, Saidi Arabia, zimbabwe, mozambique, etc, etc needs more diversity. Only white countries need diversification.

            Africa for the Africans.
            Asia for the Asians.
            White countries for everybody!

            Become a racial realist. No successful multicultural society has ever existed. Its not about hate, but preservation. The pendulum is swinging back. People are waking up the third world cesspit we are being fundamentally transformed into and they’re saying no. I’m one of the very few who will speak publicly on the matter but my views are nothing new. I will recommend some alt-right sites if youre willing to take the red pill.

        • Core

          You shouldn’t have to meet any requirements if it’s a right. Police shoot themselves all the time, and they carry professionally. The truth is safety is no accident, and you have to adhere to the fundamental rules of safe gun handling. But, making someone get a license for a right defeats the purpose. My forefathers carried daily for many generations since pre Revolution hunting, defense, wars, and none shot themselves. So who’s to say if training should be required? If you grow up around guns it becomes enculturated, and you teach your children the fundamentals of safe gun handling.

    • DonDrapersAcidTrip

      We test people before they can use automobiles, which aren’t even purposefully designed to make the killing of people easier, and you actually need to own or have access to one to actually function and participate in life in most every place. I never see people supposedly for “individual rights” out there protesting for a world less dependant on the use of automobiles (not that such people are ever actually for making life more open and accessible to more people), it’s just a given that you need to take the time to learn the skills to use one and come up with a way to afford one. Why is it ridiculous to test people before they can carry a firearm around? If your actually trying to make a serious point trying to compare a carrying a FIREARM to journalism and free speech I don’t know what to tell you except that’s beyond naive and dumb?

      • Lew Siffer

        I respect your opinion, and have I considered your ideas. They are evil. I reject them.

      • politicsbyothermeans

        0/5, would not read again.

        • DonDrapersAcidTrip

          I know it’s tough having your religous beliefs challenged lmao

      • spiff1

        The written word has caused the death of more humans then any weapon, which is simply a tool…
        I remember talking to the CEO of the Georgia Conceal carry organization while I was at Glock many years ago. I asked him why he was against manditory training before getting a Conceal Carry license, and he reminded me that in Florida it was originally a 4 hour class and about $50 in order to get the license, but the politicians found a way to raise the training time and apply a large fee…It was done for money, not safety, and Georgia was not goig to follow the same trail.

        • yessah3

          Good info.

      • Tony Kammerer

        The problem with your view is that you are either ignorant of, or intentionally choose to go against the founding document of our country. The US Constitution created a new form of country that was defined by citizens having rights that the government could not infringe upon except in very specific cases. This is a very important part of why the US became such a world leader and a dream destination for people all over the world who wanted to seek the opportunities and liberty that far too many here take for granted or are willing to trade away for the promise of government protection.

        Just as with “freedom of the press”, “free speech” or “religious freedom”, our right to keep and bear arms should not be dependant upon getting permission from “our betters” in government (or media), but should be punished for abuse of such rights as committing libel, inciting riots, sacrificing animals (or people) in religious “rites” or shooting an innocent by mistake when defending ourselves from attack.

      • yessah3

        What do cops have in their cars? What does the military use for its foot soldiers? The reason we have the second amendment is not to defend against our fellow sometimes crazy citizens, its intention was to guard against tyranny from our government. I am sure I will get a lot of folks saying how crazy I am to think our government is out to control us. I am certain citizens in many countries who elected officials who have now taken control as dictators can see the benefit of being able to fight back, as some have. Most people don’t realize that the vast majority of americans did not support the revolutionary war. Most people don’t think about the fact that had the British won, the founding fathers would have most likely been hung or beheaded for treason. Is it so hard to believe that they, in that moment of lucidity, saw that a powerful government can control the people without the people having recourse to change that. That “word of god” has created the single best country on the face of the planet and every close second country has copied our constitution. I bet if we were back in colonial times, you would have sided with Britain in its utter control of the people. Government knows best afterall. Have you seen the people running this government?

        As for the comparison of free speech and the right to carry a firearm….they are both amendments and as such all americans are entitled to them. You can try and change the amendments, but as they stand, they are rights….that shall not be infringed upon. Folks like yourself are the domestic tyranny that just hands over power to the government. I bet you agree on the idea of using the unconstitutional do not fly list to determine someones right to have a gun. Not fully understanding that no one truly knows who decides who is on the list and why, with no recourse for the individual to fight being on the list, no trial or hearing. You can see the police forces arming up, most of which now have armored vehicles. Can you not see how our country is slowly becoming a police state. When will it end, how far will it go. Maybe you should go stick your head back in the sand.

        • DonDrapersAcidTrip

          a rant about police militarization has literally nothing to do with what I said

    • Wanderlust

      Agree completely. Constitutional carry should be a nationwide thing. Whats amazing to me is people who are anti carry tend to want no requirements for voting privileges. Its a lot more scary to me that someone could mess with the entire country rights and laws via voting when they may not even be US citizens. What is it about a distributed safety net of everyone carrying that they dont like? I just dont get it I guess.

      • tyrannyofevilmen

        I think many simply have a skewed understanding of risk. Also, if they have never been around firearms, they do not know anything about them.

        The media fills the gap of their ignorance with propaganda, and there we are.

    • itsmefool

      If you required training for all journalists, most of these gun blogs would be devoid of scribblers…not that it would be a bad thing!

    • Richard Lutz

      Is it not the case that the US Supreme Court ruled that civil marriage is a constitutional right last year in relation to same-sex marriage? In which case how can state governments issue marriage certificates? Some say driving on public roads is a constitutional right so issuing driver’s licences is unconstitutional.

      • yessah3

        The argument against driving being a right is much easier since it isn’t in the constitution. Marriage is a tricky one. There should be a separation from church and state, and marriage holds benefits to the individuals married, for instance in regards to insurance, estates, taxes, social security, etc.. I can’t remember the comedian, but the joke was why not let gays marry and be miserable like the rest of us. LOL! My divorce attorney has seen an uptick in gay marriages just to immediately divorce so they could legally divide the assets from the separation that had already happened years prior before they were married. Ain’t that some sh#t. As for constitutional rights, most of the founding fathers didn’t want to outright spell out our rights in a document stating they were too many to put into words and that by spelling them out, you are stating that those are the only rights you have. So..they created the 9th amendment, which essentially states that just because a right isn’t spelled out, doesn’t mean it isn’t a right. The founding fathers were libertarians and wanted Americans to have as much freedom and rights as possible. They would laugh in disgust at the notion of training for a right that WAS actually spelled out in the constitution.

    • Core

      Totally agree

  • Gjert Klakeg Mulen

    I think every law-abiding man and woman should be able to carry. It is up to themselves to train in the use of a handgun for defencive use , and I think most people will train anyways without needing a permit, as it benefits themselves greatly.

    And as I have said many times to many different people, criminals don’t care. They will carry if it is illegeal and they already do all over the world. That said though, I understand the reasoning behind this post. Of course it would be wonderful if everyone who were allowed to carry were experts, but this would hinder many law-abiding people from carrying a gun to protect themselves.

    I rest my case.

  • David Harmon

    Constitutional Carry. There are no Amendments giving the government permission to restrict where I can and can not defend my own, your, or anyone else’s Life, Liberty, and Freedom.

  • Mike C

    I don’t believe that training should be mandatory, and see it as a poll tax, although I believe that the training would be greatly beneficial to the uninformed and the know-it-alls to increase firearms safety.

    Honestly, I’d be ok with mandatory training, if the state paid for the training with an NRA accredited instructor of your choice.

    • allannon

      The closest I’d come to requiring mandatory training is my oft-repeated assertion that firearms handling (among other life skills) be taught in school. I think a lot of anti-gunners would be far less creeped out by firearms if they had any actual experience that wasn’t filtered through Hollywood.

      I really would like to see what amounts to a scouting program built into education; even outside of firearms I think people would learn a greater appreciation for the environment, and all too many people I know have basically no idea how to do things like cook.

      • Len Jones

        That ain’t going to happen they can’t even teach the 3 r’s now its gotten out of hand they have to be almost the kids parents because the parents don’t care anymore and the gov. runs how they have to teach. We have a cop in most of the schools and where my daughter teaches middle school some of the guys come to school after dear hunting in cameo but thats a country school.

  • Cultured Prick

    I believe training should be manditory as a former Leo and ex army I’ve seen some dumb people. I really have seen someone plant a claymore the wrong way and not on purpose. I believe 100 percent in the 2a but you need to show profiency with it. You need to show that you know some of the law where it would apply to you. There are a lot of people who don’t know when and where they can pull a firearm. If we had a national standard issue training and cards it would be safer.

    Wouldn’t you like to be able to pass thru Maryland without fear of arrest? There are people I see everyday who couldn’t get it out fast enough , couldn’t stop me from taking theirs and couldn’t hit only the perp with well aimed shots. Shooting is a perishable skill and moving targets are even harder. I encourage all to shoot defensive shooting courses. you’ll be surprised how much worse you are then you think. But you can improve with training.

    • allannon

      The problem is that a training requirement is a very slippery slope. It would be easy to impose training requirements that de facto ban a significant portion of the population from owning/carrying firearms. Say, demonstrable proficiency with a pistol of 1MOA at 50m; I doubt 1 in 10 of the population could manage that (up to and including people that are otherwise considered superb shots). Or a 20-hour (half work-week) annual class.

      I’m not even happy with the mandatory losses already legislated, like felons; have a separate trial for such, sure, but mandating the loss of rights really bothers me.

      Replace “Second Amendment” with any other right and see if it still seems reasonable; if not, the requirement is flawed.

      • Cultured Prick

        Any other right doesn’t kill people when it goes astray. I’m not advocating it be mandatory to get a permit only that if you start a national program that was accepted in all 50 it be held to higher standard. 50m is not the gunfight range. But it’s fair to say you should be able to hit 7-10 feet with profiency.

      • Bill

        Slippery slope? There is testing to get a driver’s license, and there still plenty of drivers who suck.

        • allannon

          There’s also not a massive lobby trying to get all cars taken away.

          • Bill

            That lobby that’s been consistently shrinking and loosing power since the last century? The Million Mom March is now smaller than a local book club. Every other day a new suppressor or threaded barrel hits the market, which would have been unheard of, pardon the pun, a dozen years ago, back when not nearly as many states had CCW provisions as do now.

            That slippery slope has been pretty well salted.

    • MisterSandman

      Last time I checked, before one is allowed to plant a claymore, one must receive training to perform the planting. The mad rush to mandate “training” to exercise a Constitutional right misses the point that training is no guarantee that someone is proficient. Well trained stupid people, as pointed out in your example, are still stupid.

  • Don Ward

    Whether there should or should not be training is irrelevant since the very task of having enough trainers and training classes is nigh on impossible given the scope of the task. There are not enough qualified firearms instructors. I’m not even sure there are enough instructors to train the needed firearms instructors, let alone average pupils let alone coming up with what a governmental approved training course would entail.

  • Roy G Bunting

    I’m going to buy the dissenting opinion.

    Guns are inherently dangerous. That is why we use the for self defense. Carrying loaded guns in public exposes others to the danger. We license other dangerous device used in public, concealed carry should be licensed.

    As a national standard, after the background check, there would be a written test, focusing mainly on safety, shoot/no shoot situations and self defense law. There would be a practical test, something like an idpa stage (draw, shoot, reload, target discrimination, reholster, at ranges less the 25m) that doesn’t require movement and isn’t timed. Turn in your score and get your license. Renewal would be written only. Licencing would be good for 5 years.

    Study materials for the written test would be provided by the state. The range can charge no more the $50 for the range test, the written test is free. The license could be no more the $50, and either be a separate card or ID endorsement.

    Not too onerous, the test could be administered at pretty much any range, range employees would be compensated. Probably some NRA range master requirement for the practical test proxy. And it defuses the “untrained Yahoo’s with guns” argument.

    It’s not perfect, but other issues could be hammered out.

    • Other dangerous objects aren’t protected by the constitution. Driving an automobile is a great example. It’s a privilege, not a right…so manditory training does not violate constitutional rights.

      • Roy G Bunting

        Rights are not unlimited. They are balanced by responsibility. As an activity that can endanger the public, the government has an interest in reducing the risk. A shall issue permit at a reasonable cost is a balancing responsibility.

        I get the draw of Constitutional Carry. And it’s be nice to just buy any gun without paperwork. But we need to bear the responsibility with the right.

        If we want to draw a comparison between the 2nd Amendment and other rights, recall that the 2nd amendment says “arms”. Firearms are one subset of the items described. Just as you have a right to travel, to travel by plane or car, you have to pass a test. You have a right to speech, but to broadcast at significant wattages, you need to licence with the government. You can assemble peaceably, but if your assembly blocks traffic, you need a permit. You have a right to own and carry personal weapons, but to buy a firearm you cannot be a felon, and to carry it in public, you may need to show you understand the law of self defense and that you can shoot straight enough to not shoot bystanders. That seems reasonable to me.

        • Again, you are confusing rights and privileges…

          You do not have a right to drive a car, that is a privilege (at least on public roadways). The same goes for boarding a plane. They both could be regulated into oblivion and there wouldn’t be a violation of Constitutional rights.

          Speaking and broadcasting a signal over the airwaves (which can be anything, voice or otherwise) is not the same thing. Not even close. Again, another privilege…there is nothing in the constitution (federal or state) that guarantees your right to broadcast a signal.

          I DO believe in background checks because certain rights of felons’ have been forfeited, and therefore, wouldn’t be protected. Short of that, there should be no hindrance, including a financial one.

          I pay the state of Illinois $25 for the privilege to drive, but $150 for the right to keep & bear that I ALREADY have. There is no way it’s costing them anywhere near that amount to maintain the program, so they have basically made a profit center out of our constitutional rights (not to mention, make it a hardship for working middle class and poor). Suppose it did cost that much though…the State has every right to keep track of who does/doesn’t carry. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents this. However, forcing individuals to pay for this optional program IS a constitutional violation, no matter how you look at it.

          All that said, I’m definitely a proponent of responsible firearm ownership. People SHOULD become proficient if they are going to own or carry a firearm. My primary point is that doing so shouldn’t be a hindrance.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            Your just being pedantic about driving being a “privilege” and if you want to go that way pretty sure the authors of the constitution weren’t thinking about 30 round ar-15s and 17 round handguns with 33 round extended magazines. You basically need a car to exist and function in the world and none of you people are protesting that as being a “tax” on unskilled, disabled, or poor people. Your not calling for public electric trams or whatever. But any limitation on carrying a firearms around is an infringement on some god given right?

          • The U.S. Constitution is a legal document, and as with any legal document, being judiciously pedantic in its interpretation is exactly what is required. Otherwise there is absolutely no point on even drafting it. People will attempt to muddy the interpretation process with completely irrelevant topics, such as their views on how “God given” the document is or not our how some other privilege should or shouldn’t be a right…exactly as your post so eloquently does.

            It’s hilarious to me that people actually use the “they couldn’t have imagined firearms of today” argument, for a couple of reasons…

            1) This is a group of people who just won their independence solely because their average fighter was just as well armed as the average infantry soldier they fought against. So now they use their newly found independence to create a law that limits that ability??? Just to be certain, they make it the second highest law in the land as well as place it in the Bill of Rights, securing its existence for as long as the Constitution exists??? If you honestly believe that, all rational belief has left this conversation and I’ll stop replying.

            2) Several of those supposed non-forward thinking people were not only inventors, but gunsmiths themselves. Breach loading rifles already existed, and the search for a better way to both load firearms faster and carry more ammunition in them was well underway at the time. It was a far cry from being “unimaginable”.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            Go try existing without using a car at all for a while and get back to me.

          • 1) Been there, done that…for years when I was younger.

            2) It’s still completely irrelevant. It’s a privilege, there is no law that gives/protects a right to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways.

            3) Under your thinking, any and everything that makes life more convenient should be a right. If you DO believe this, then pardon me while I talk to my colleague… Holy privileged person Batman!!!

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            please point out the right that very specifically guarantees us all in clear language easy access to semi automatic firearms. Not saying we should or shouldn’t, but there’s no guaranteed right that specifically says ar-15s and whatever should be assigned to everyone at birth.

            “Under your thinking, any and everything that makes life more convenient should be a right.”

            Uh, no? lol. That’s just a twelve year old’s kind of thinking. “Well I guess you must think all this other stuff too!!!!” why is it so hard for people to put like two seconds of effort into an argument without resorting to this playground stuff

          • I have at least 30 or so friends who don’t own vehicles, most quite happily. If I had to I could as well. The expense is worth the convenience to me, but it’s hardly a need. I need food, water, clothing, shelter, and a way to defend myself and my family from those things being taken (not to mention, our lives). I don’t need a car.

            Regardless, it’s a privilege, not a right, no matter how much you want it to be. If you don’t like it, start a petition in your State to make it so.

            If the 2nd Amendment isn’t simple & clear to you, then there is no point in even continuing the discussion. There is absolutely no ambiguity in it whatsoever. If you disagree with that, then I agree to disagree with you.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            “Regardless, it’s a privilege, not a right, no matter how much you want it to be” you all are literally physically incapable of talking about this kind of thing without injecting this kind of garbage into it lol.

            And where do these thirty friends of yours live? Why is it always classic Baby’s First Attempt At An Argument to say “I know a guy who can do a thing” like that applies to every single person in every situation? It’s always the guy who makes use of a thing who is telling everybody else how they really don’t need that thing, weird how that works.

            Also all I’m saying is gee, maybe semi-auto handguns and rifle ownership should be tested and licensed. They are other guns out there if taking the time to learn to use fire arms and demonstrate that is such a deal break lmao. Since we want to be obtusely literally about the 2nd amendment, we can assign everyone a flint lock pistol and rifle at birth the way the founding fathers and god clearly intended.

            “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.”

            “There is absolutely no ambiguity in it whatsoever.” lmao your kidding right? No I get that there’s no ambiguity in it for you, because it’s a religion for you.

          • How are facts garbage??? If you are uncertain of the difference between a right and a privilege then I can understand why you’d feel that way. Take like 5 minutes to research the meanings of the words in relation to the law. Then it should be crystal clear. Again, no ambiguity there. The difference between a right and a privilege (legally speaking) is very clear cut.

            Chicago…It’s quite easy to get around with public transportation here. There is an entire movement of people selling their cars and moving downtown. Again…Google is your friend, look it up for yourself.

            And again, it’s a moot point…driving is a privilege (not a right) that is extended by your State. Even if you live 50 miles from the nearest hospital, store, our whatever other destination you want to travel to, doing so by an automobile on public roadways is a privilege. If you are still confused by this, refer back to paragraph 1.

            I see now that you don’t get the point of the 2nd Amendment, so let me explain it in easy to understand way using a modern example.

            Suppose the rebels in Syria succeed in overthrowing Assad. This would happened solely because their fighters are roughly as well armed as the infantry soldiers they are fighting against. What if, after this victory, they setup a new government and create a law limiting their own ability to be as well armed against the government if it becomes oppressive again. Then they make it the second highest law of the land and place it in their new constitution so that it can’t be undone without literally disbanding the entire constitution itself.

            Does that sound logical to you? If so, it explains a lot!

            BTW – The “militia” argument has failed in court time and time again (from lower courts all the way up to the Supreme Court). It should never have gone that far in the first place. People like you are so hell bent on making that line mean something it’s not that you lost sight of WHERE it’s located. The Bill Of Rights (that would be the first ten amendments) very specifically states (in the first sentence of its description no less) that it applies to INDIVIDUAL rights. Again, don’t take my word for it, Google it yourself. The militia reference is there simply to explain to future INDIVIDUALS (that means you) why it is important. It even states “…the RIGHT of the PEOPLE…” immediately after so that there wouldn’t be any confusion about it
            (not the right of the militia). So yeah…there isn’t any ambiguity.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            “Chicago…It’s quite easy to get around with public transportation here. There is an entire movement of people selling their cars and moving downtown. Again…Google is your friend, look it up for yourself.”

            Again what part of this applies to anyone else? What does this have to do with people not in chicago? Or even every person in chicago? Yeah we get that you, the guy who gets around every place in a car, thinks that people don’t actually need cars really. But actually people do need cars just to exist in most every place, but you fine with that being defined as a “privilege” yet guns are a right. That you don’t see anything hypocritical about that says a lot. You’ll bend backwards every which way to interpret the 2nd amendment favorably, but cars? privilege, end of story, no relevance. even though you depend on one every day. lmao.

          • You tell me…you asked me where and I answered. I stated (three separate times now), it’s completely irrelevant. Driving is a privilege, plain and simple, no matter what state you live in. Again, if you believe it should be a right then position your State. I didn’t right the laws, that’s how they are.

            I just realized, you didn’t actually look up the legal definitions of rights and privileges, otherwise you wouldn’t have come back with that reply. Ignorance is definitely bliss! It sure would be nice to live by how I felt the world should be rather than how it really is.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            It’s easy to hear how much driving is a just a privilege from people who make use of it every day just to exist and their ability to do so is never in any danger lol. I don’t care about legal definitions of rights and privileges. I already said my belief in the right of firearm ownership has absolutely nothing to do with the constitution. I don’t fall to my knees at the sight of words written by a bunch of slave owners and treat their words like holy relics.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            “we need guns to overthrow government tyranny”

            “cars are privilege not a right it says right there in subsection heading c of government regulation 134545.6 follow along please”

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            Explain how, if requiring cars to exist and testing and licensing use of them and high cost of cars and insurance etc, is not impeding anyone’s right to exist, which it must not since it’s certainly not something you’re concerned about. Then how would testing and licensing owership of firearms (and only even certain ones) imepede anyone’s right to own firearms. Or, you could just keep trotting out the phrase “it’s a privilege not a right” over and over while all of you plug your ears and pretend like your lives wouldn’t break down a lot faster without cars than without guns

          • Jim_Macklin

            It should be remembered that the Constitutional and Bill of Rights are NOT self-enforcing. Congress has to pass laws to define and clarify. For instance “well regulated” was defined in the Militia Act of 1792 such things as what kind of musket, knife, quantity of ammunition, and other supplies constituted well regulated.
            The Second Amendment was not applied to the States until 2010 in the McDonald SCOUS case. For it to be “my carry license” some law is required.

          • yessah3

            On point 1), I have always thought precisely that, given that a majority of the founding fathers did not want to limit our rights to only those declared in writing, hence the creation of the 9th amendment, just goes to show you how important the idea of individual americans having the right to keep and bear arms was to them that they not only put it in, but at number 2. LOL! You can’t reason with the unreasonable just as you can’t rationalize with the irrational. The anti gun folks are ruled by fear, not logic. Fear is an emotion, and when emotions are involved logic generally gets thrown out.

          • milesfortis

            And the founders had no idea of high speed printing presses or the internet.
            Yet both have a protected status within the BOR.

          • yessah3

            They would have been thinking about AR-15’s and high cap mags had the British had those weapons. The irony is the colonialists had far superior weapons in regards to rifles than the british. The colonialists had longer rifled barrels as opposed to the british smooth bores. That gave them more accuracy and range. So yes, for the time, the colonialists had AR-15’s and Barret 50 cal sniper rifles compared to what the british had.
            Would the colonialists won if they didn’t have those high powered guns for the time period? Would America exist? Would we enjoy the freedoms we have today? You and people like you are what is wrong with our country, so willing to give away freedoms that so many have fought and died for. You are un american and what is wrong with this country.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            this… entire comment is just dumb. why are even trying to find an equivalent to modern firearms to 1700s firearms? your just rambling on about literally nothing lol

          • Core

            The right to defend one’s Life is a God given right, according to my religion. The Constitution states the inalienable right to Life, and Right to Bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Therefore the Constitution is a reflection of the sacred right of Life, and furthermore right to bear arms, to support this right. So to revoke someone’s right to protect Life and limb, would be unconstitutional and sacrilege. Just sayin.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            How about the right to actually live your life, which you kind of need a car to do that in 21st century america. You seem perfectly fine that we test and regulate cars. I don’t think you’re out there protesting for more sidewalks, bike paths, or electric public trams or anything like that.

          • Core

            I’ve done work for my entire region to make access to food and agricultural resources easier. I know more about Human networks than you ever will. So stop with the vehicle regulations nonsense.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            Why don’t you start with making an actual argument beyond “nu uh” or “big gov coming to take the guns” or “because god said so”

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            also this ” the inalienable right to Life, and Right to Bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” is not a phrase that’s anywhere in the bill of rights or constitution lmao

            also it’s always nice to see 2nd amendment fanatics show how much they care about the 2nd amendment by never at any point in history taking the time to point out or demonstrate how bothered they are by the fact that it doesn’t and never has applied to non-white people

    • Steven T

      I agree. Having worked in law enforcement, I’ve seen my share of “responsible” gun owners make some rather poor decisions. I’ve always felt that just “having a gun” doesn’t make you safe. It is one tool that must be paired with practice, situational awareness and if possible some less lethal alternatives.

      As for the constitutional arguments, let me say this. Justice Scalia (rest his soul) stated in the Heller ruling that the second amendment isn’t a license to carry “any gun, any time, anywhere”. The state does have the right to regulate the way guns are carried.

      • Matt

        What a coincidence, it seems like every time I watch the news, I see my fair share of “responsible” Peace Officers make some rather poor decisions.

        • Out of the Fray

          As a retired LEO I agree 100%.

        • Officers are like everyone else they make mistakes at times. Our mistakes can have serious consequences so like everyone else we try not to make them.

      • Marcus D.

        Scalia was referring to the Miller decision (“dangerous and unusual weapons” –which phrase has an ambiguous but fairly definite meaning), and restrictions on presumptively valid “gun free zones” in certain public buildings, etc. The comment has nothing to do with carrying guns in public, in general, only some weapons at some places and at some times.

        • Jim_Macklin

          GFSZ law was ruled unconstitutional in the Lopez case. One reason why SCOUS ruled that way was because Congress cited not jurisdiction to pass a state law restriction.
          Congress wrote a short paragraph and re-passed Title 18 922(q). You can read their reasons, such as they are.
          But the Court did not hear any evidence in HELLER about any other law and all Scalia was doing was saying, in legalese, that it should not be assumed that other laws were valid or not. Even in McDonald, all other possible questions were not answered.
          In Miller the Court DID NOT uphold 1934 NFA but they remanded the case for trial back in Arkansas. That has never happened.
          The only thing SCOUS was certain of was that “the militia was expected to appear bearing their private arms of the type then in service.” Thus in 1939 SCOUS said that “assault rifles” were exactly the type of arm protected. Since every type of arm available now was available in 1939, only materials have changed, assault weapons bans are obviously unconstitutional.

          • Marcus D.

            First, I don’t know what Lopez has to do with the discussion; the decision was not that the GFSZ Act was unconstitutional per se, but that Congress had failed to invoke the necessary jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

            While it is true that Heller did not consider any law other than the D.C. ordinance, Scalia did say that limitations on carrying firearms in certain public buildings, bans on ownership by felons and the mentally ill, were, in his words, “presumptively lawful.”

            I cannot agree that SCOTUS did not uphold the 1934 NFA. Indeed, the trial court had sustained a demurrer to the criminal complaint against Miller (for possessing ashort barrelled shotgun) on the basis that the NFA violated the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of
            a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at
            this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or
            efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
            Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
            Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part
            of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to
            the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154,
            158.” The Court went on to express the view that the Second Amendment was written for the purpose of guaranteeing the arming of the militia: “The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-‘To
            provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
            suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing,
            arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of
            them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,
            reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
            and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
            prescribed by Congress.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, s 8. With obvious
            purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness
            of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment
            were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”

          • Jim_Macklin

            SCOUS always presumes that Congress passes only constitutional laws. Thus he said “preemptively” rather than certainly.
            As far as the MILLER Court being unable to say whether a shotgun had any application to militia service was because the Arkansas trial court ruled the 1934 law was unconstitutional and dismissed Miller. No testimony or evidence was taken, thus SCOUS had nothing to review or study, thus “it [was] not within judicial notice.” The actual case was REMANDED FOR TRIAL.

            LOPEZ, and then Congress passed the same law again. Unlicensed or licensed carry under reciprocity will require amending Title 18 922(q) so the exception applies for any license.

            The HELLER decision made the Tennessee court decision moot. But even so, had the Tenn Court considered the US Second Amendment as a limitation of the State it would have held that the right to keep and bear arms would have made the State law invalid.

            In 1789 when Congress wrote the Second Amendment, the words “for the common defense” were rejected for inclusion in the article as passed and ratified.

          • Marcus D.

            I have been practicing law for thirty years but I have no clue what you are talking about. I fully know what “presumptively” means, and it has the same meaning in law as ascribed to it in a dictionary. The presumption affects the burden of proof on anyone challenging a law; but that is only step one of any analysis. Still, that presumption is not relevant other than to say that Scalia assumed all laws in existence not challenged by Heller are not overturned by its holding.

            Lopez is not a “rights” case, it is a procedural case. It tells us nothing. The GFSZ Act is not applicable to carry within the zone outside of a school campus (on campus being subject to varying regulations or bans in the various states). Again, why is this relevant? Why would it have to be amended? You haven’t said.

            Miller said that the 1934 NFA Act was not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, as I have quoted from the actual holding of the case. The Court, as is the case in ALL demurrers, was fully aware of the facts of the crime for which Mr. Miller had been charged, as specified in the indictment, and for the purpose of demurrer, assumes them to be true–that Mr. Miller was arrested while carrying a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18″. The trial court held the indictment failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because the statute under which he was charged was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagreed, for reasons I have elucidated.

            The Tennessee case, Aymette, is cited in Miller, and is moot only to the extent that Miller had been relied upon for years in support of the proposition that the Second Amendment provided a “collective”, not an individual right. Aymette has not been mooted, not only a state law case, it can be cited–and ws cited in Miller– for the proposition that citizens are entitled to keep and bear arms that are appropriate for use in militia service. In this day and age, that means M4s, M 16s, BARs (subject to the restrictions of the NFA), and just about any handgun, rifle or shotgun, etc. Do you think that proposition is moot? Why do you think a Tennessee court would have, way back when, found the Tennessee law to violate the Second? If you have an argument, support it, otherwise it is mere speculation.

            The elimination of the language “for the common defense” supports the proposition that the Second Amendment is not limited to militia service, a proposition no one here is arguing against. which is what the Heller majority concluded. What’s the point?

          • Jim_Macklin

            To keep it simple. The 1,000 foot radius from the school grounds perimeter means that in most cities 90% of the area is in a school zone.
            The exception in Title 18 922(q) does not extend to either unlicensed carry or cases of reciprocity.
            The picture is approximately correct for public schools, but does not reflect parochial in the Wichita, KS area.
            That is a trap that needs to be removed as part of any National Reciprocity law or just for the nearly forty States to have reciprocity now.

      • Jim_Macklin

        Justice Scalia’s dicta in HELLER has been misquoted and misunderstood. Because HELLER considered ONLY Washington, D.C.’s handgun law and home storage rule, the SCOUS did not take evidence on other laws. For that reason Justice Scalia said that it should not be assumed that other laws were constitutional or unconstitutional.
        The Court used HELLER and a wider range of testimony to reach the conclusion of McDonald, which held that the Federal Bill of Rights must be obeyed by the States and courts must use Strict Scrutiny when making decisions.

        • Marcus D.

          It held no such thing. Rights under the first ten amendments, as applied to the states, are considered on a right by right basis. To be fair, most have been held to apply at one time or another, but no such broad sweeping statement is found in Heller. Further, Heller did not say that strict scrutiny always applies to the Second Amendment; its holding is limited to the possession of firearms in the home. It specifically declined to set a standard of review, concluding instead that the law failed no matter what level of scrutiny was applied. Further, the majority of the Courts of Appeal have applied intermediate scrutiny (of varying flavors, some hardly more than “rational basis”, the lowest standard) in cases presented to them afterwards, in all of which it has refused cert.

          • Jim_Macklin

            Those lower courts will be reversed, strict scrutiny is required.
            Perhaps you are hoping President Obama can load the Court with one or more Justices that have already made up their mind to reverse HELLER and McDonald.
            The 1939 Miller case presented only the government side. The NRA was not involved as a lobby or friend of the Court until the 1970s.

          • Marcus D.

            Now you are talking pure B.S. and putting words in my mouth. I have accurately reported what the lower courts have done–and more importantly what the Supreme Court has not done, and that is to grant review in any number of cases that were appropriate vehicles to reverse the Circuits that have sought to limit Heller to its facts, courts that are feeling free to apply a “public interest in safety” to essentially bar review of State laws that have to rational basis in fact or logic. The most recent case was the Highland Park case, a decision that sustained an AR ban on the basis of “feels.” [Specifically, the Seventh Circuit held that a ban that made people “feel” more secure passed muster under “intermediate scrutiny.” Will these decisions be reversed? Since it did not happen before Scalia died–when the court was 4-4 with one swing vote, the odds of it happening after a new appointment are similarly limited, even if the new appointee is as pro-2A as Scalia was.

            Will Heller (and McDonald) be reversed? That too is unlikely, even if Obama packs the court. Under the doctrine of “stare decisis” the Court is extraordinarily hesitant to reverse prior decisions, even when those decisions have been heavily criticized. Take for example the Slaughter House cases, and Thomas’ joinder in McDonald arguing that it was time for the Court to overturn that decision and apply the 14th Amendment as it was intended when enacted. As you may be aware, his argument was joined by no one. Further, all nine justices agreed that there is an individual right under the Second, but split as to its scope, the minority concluding that the right existed (as implied by Miller) only in connection with service in a militia (and not for the purpose of defense of hearth and home, unless that was a part of an organized militia activity such as fighting savages).

      • yessah3

        Using the old law enforcement officer as though that makes you an expert on guns is silly. I knew an NRA instructor who tested police for shooting and he said most of the officers were terrible with guns. Most could barely hit a target. Thankfully most cops don’t have to use them. Cops weapon training in the US is terrible and getting worse every year with budget cutbacks.

        • Core

          True. Very unfortunate but true. I have family in law enforcement and they don’t get enough funding for ammunition to practice independently let alone annual training. They have to rally hard to get funding for weapons training, its very unfortunate and as voters we have only ourselves to blame.

          • milesfortis

            Core, if you just got an email about draperacidtrips drive by troll post.
            My advice is to not respond
            He waits two week to post a comment on any board and he comes by and posts replies to a half dozen of us at the same time just a little while ago.
            He’s looking for attention, so don’t give him any.
            This is why I’m relying on a comment far enough away that he might not be looking for it

          • Core

            I think he might me a bit off. I’m entertaining the idea that he might be an activist of some sort. He brings up the typical coined activist propaganda. TFB can always do a MAC or IP ban, that’s what I used to do on my site. Thanks for the concern, and heads up!

        • milesfortis

          Yessah, read my comment a bit further down in reply to Core.
          DDacidtrip is doing drive by trolling, as it seems he got bored from not posting for the last two weeks.

      • Core

        You drank the coolaid. Estate law is the basis for where you have rights, plain and simple. I don’t see why this is debated. If it’s public property you have the right, if it’s private property that depends. Incorporated entities have private property, but the public domain is protected via Constitution Bill of Rights. In other words any tax funded property should be permissible to bear arms by any free man or woman, unless deemed private. Private property must be clearly posted, as gun free and private.

    • david schaff

      When i had my cpl class it was amazing how many did not know when lethal force could be used or not. Many would have been charged with murder.

      • yessah3

        Ignorance of the law is not a defense. I would recommend any gun owner to know the law. Even if you are found innocent criminally you could still be found guilty civilly, but I would rather be poorer than dead. Also, if you do end up in a shootout with someone, kill that dude. A) medical costs for someone paralyzed are astronomical, and B) dead men make horrible witnesses.

    • yessah3

      And it will most likely not save one life. The folks that treat guns responsibly are the same folks that would do so without a class telling them to do so. They also tend to drive safer, and take less risks. The folks that don’t treat guns responsibly are the same folks that could take that class every year of their life with the same results, who tend to make poor decisions in life. You can’t legislate stupidity and recklessness as our government often tries to do.

      • Core

        I agree.

    • Core

      Still too much room for corruption.

  • Nick

    As far as “one card to rule them all” I believe the system should be the same as with driver licensing. Its issued by your home state, and all other 49 MUST honor it if it’s valid.

    I hope eventually someone can cook up an equal protection lawsuit against a non-reciprocal state, similar to the gay marriage ruling (which basically said that marriage licenses valid in one state must be accepted in all states).

    That said, with Scalia’s passing, we can only hope a good conservative replaces him, because if it’s a die hard liberal, such a case wouldn’t fare well, like the proverbial snowball in hell.

    • I disagree. Each entity responsible for a law should be the one who oversees it. This is a US Constitutional matter, and therefore, should be issued bu the Federal government. States shouldn’t be involved whatsoever…that is how we wound up with states violating 2nd Amendment rights in the first place.

      Driving is a privilege (not a right), granted by individual states. That being the case, it’s proper for states to regulate driving privileges.

      • milesfortis

        I think you misunderstand the point.

        Every state (there are other examples of required recognition but just to cite the current example for brevity) recognizes the DLs of all other states.
        While most states DL licensing requirements are similar, there are differences. But THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

        The requirement would be for all states to recognize the CCs of other states just like DLs (some already do e.g. Missouri, Alabama, Kentucky, now Virginia).
        Each state’s requirements on how to obtain a CC have remained without change.

        • I do understand…what you are describing is called reciprocation.

          My point is that reciprocation shouldn’t be necessary because States shouldn’t be ones overseeing anything regarding the Bill Of Rights anyway, that is a Federal issue.

          Actually, you shouldn’t need a licence to do something you have a right to do in the first place.

          Either way, reciprocation, as far as the big picture goes, would be a step in the opposite direction.

          • milesfortis

            Recognition isn’t reciprocity.
            Recognition is a one sided thing. Reciprocity is a two sided.
            Words, and concepts mean things. But we are digressing.
            I agree that licensing a right shouldn’t be necessary, or even existent.
            But, it is.
            I deal with the way things are and hope, that some day, things can be the way they should be. I didn’t say I liked it, I deal with it.
            The collectivists and utilitarians have successfully used incrementalism.
            We may need to understand that this method, unfortunately, may be the way things are going to happen. So far, it seems to be working.

          • milesfortis

            Jabari.
            DD acid trip has come around, two weeks after this post has gone stale. To me it looks like he’s trolling simply for attention.
            I’m not going to bite, but I’ve seen who he’s relied to and I’m passing the word in places on the post’s commentary where it’s unlikely he’ll be looking

        • Marcus D.

          What about the states that are no issue (Hawaii), or barely issue (NY, NJ, D.C., Maryland and California)? What good is national reciprocity (which will do away with nonresident permits) if you can’t get a CCW in your home state?

          • milesfortis

            Realistically, not a damn thing for those folks.
            Such is the way of politics.
            I don’t have to like it, and I don’t, but it’s what is at this point in time.

            Anyway, who says it’ll will to do away with non-resident permits? It’s possible, as non-resident permits would be mooted, but I don’t necessarily see that happening as a state legislature would have to amend their law, and I don’t see a requirement for that. In fact, most would probably keep it as a money maker for the benighted souls out there in ‘Blue Land’.

          • Jim_Macklin

            States that issue licenses now to non-residents will still do so even after a National Reciprocity law. Vermont has never required a license to carry a firearm openly or concealed. Many Vermont residents get a Florida or Arizona license so they can travel.
            Some states only recognize a license from your home state, some states, Kansas and Missouri honor all state licenses.
            Aside from CCW/CCH reciprocity, State Attorney Generals need to conference and create a Uniform Use of Force Law. It is pretty close now. You have to be fearful of great bodily harm or death. General you cannot shoot to defend property. Some States treat your dwelling as a person. Carjacking defense is often treated as an attack on a person, while car theft assumes an empty car.
            Some States have Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground or law suit protections. But as Florida proved in the Zimmerman case, those laws are violated by the government.

          • Marcus D.

            If there is national reciprocity, then the need for nonresident permits is eliminated for all but constitutional carry states, and most of those issue simply for the purpose of travel. I think that there is pretty consistent law with respect to use of force to protect one’s person. All states have some form of castle doctrine, AFAIK, although they don’t all call it that; I don’t know of any state that requires you to retreat from your place of abode to avoid a violent assault, as England (stupidly) does.
            In the final analysis, the burden has always been on CCW holders to know the law of the states in which they travel, including their home state, and national reciprocity will not change that. Every carrier should have some inkling of the proper and permitted use of deadly force (although I admittedly seen too many incidents of people who do not). Should training be required? I don’t know–there are arguments both ways. But at the minimum, even if no training is required, every issuing agency should issue some statewide pamphlet detailing the use of force laws along with the license.

    • Len Jones

      I agree could be a stamp on your drivers license and save from carrying something else.

      • Jim_Macklin

        Then every time you check into a hotel, rent a car or cash a check, you’d be flashing your carry license.
        Kansas at first offered the choice, on the DL or a separate card. Now they only do a separated card that looks a lot like a DL.
        BTW, If you’re carrying and are stopped by the police [don’t speed and make sure all your lights work ] NEVER say, “I have a gun” because gun is a trigger word. Best to just say “I’m license— to carry.”
        BTW2… The PA woman who crossed the bridge in NJ and was arrested, was pardoned by Christie [ I wrote him a letter to say that if he EVER wanted to be elected POTUS he had better pardon the innocent woman. But since she did what PA required and IMMEDIATELY told the traffic officer she had a gun, her arrest and search of the car was illegal because she was not given her Miranda Rights first.

    • Jim_Macklin

      If Scalia is replaced by a liberal, we can kiss the HELL and McDonald cases and therefore the Second Amendment good bye. The November election is that critical and that of course means so are the Primaries.
      Vote for Cruz, the one guy you can trust.

  • Abram

    It’s been said that liberty is exercising the ability to do as you will without infringing on others’ liberty, and accepting that sometimes you will not agree with others’ choices. Laws have the barrel of a gun waiting at the end, in the hands of someone in uniform.
    No national carry, that right is not granted to the Federal government, nor should it be. It is the right of the States to determine. Rights and conveniences do not get along well for those that cherish rights.
    No training requirement; the vast majority of gun-handling is done quite safely without government approved safety training, without incident.

  • Gern Blandersong

    I am all for states rights to decide. Do not allow the federal government to get control of the laws for concealCarry. Now that I have said that, I do disagree with constituional carry. I think there should be mandatory training, just like there is for drivers licences for cars, trucks, etc… I do not want untrained drivers on the road, just like I do not want untrained people carrying guns. My biggest fear is negligent discharges and unsafe handling of firearms in public.

  • Jim_Macklin

    Each state should establish what they believe is appropriate. At the same time they should examine the law in Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Wyoming and Vermont to determine if the restrictive laws of Illinois, NYC & NYS, California and Hawaii make any sense at all?
    The Federal law should require reciprocity by all states for all other states. Such a law will result in states holding conferences to create a workable standard.
    As part of a national reciprocity law, the GFSZ law Title 19 922(q) must be amended to recognize reciprocity and lawful self-defense with all school zones.

    • milesfortis

      “The Federal law should require reciprocity by all states for all other states.
      You’ve got the point.

      ” Such a law will result in states holding conferences to create a workable standard.
      Possible, maybe even desirable, but unnecessary. Several states already recognize all other state’s CC permits. Differences in state requirements to obtain have not been a truly significant part of the legislative discussions, that I’ve researched.

      • Jim_Macklin

        Kansas recognizes ALL others States licenses. Kansas recently adopted Constitutional Carry, no license is required by residents or visitors as long as they are 21 years of age and not a Federal prohibited person. Either open or concealed carry.
        A Kansas CCHL [concealed carry handgun license] is recognized in 36 other States. But the 14 States and districts refuse to honor any but their own license. NYC doesn’t even recognize a NYS CCW.
        But when the Congress passes National Reciprocity, those States will be “forced”

        to honor other states. When residents of NY, IL, CA and Hawaii and Washington, DC see that residents of other states are able to get a license [something difficult or impossible for a NYC resident] the States AGs will conference.
        The States will retain their agreed to standards, all the feds will do is say, “what ever you do, you have to follow the Constitutional requirement to honor other States legal actions.”

        • milesfortis

          Like I said, you get ‘it’.
          I’ve seen our neighbor beat us out from going CC to Constitutional Carry faster than it took us (MO) to just get CC.
          MO also recognizes all CC and ours is a CC weapons permit (I can, and do, carry different ‘deadly weapons’).

          • Jim_Macklin

            Kansas no longer lists “dangerous knives” AFAIK only throwing stars with sharp points are illegal to carry. But Bowie knives, sword canes, switchblades and assisted opening are all legal. Buttery fly knives are legal in Kansas [a felony in Nevada ]. Brass knuckles are not legal and that makes the WWI trench knife very questionable to carry.
            Kansas has Castle Doctrine, protection from law suits, all in all because Kansas elected the right people to the Legislature and Governor and Attorney General.

            Politics is a 365 day a year job.
            But I can’t even apply for an Illinois non-resident CCH despite the fact I lived there for a 1/4 Century 🙁
            At least Illinois has Safe Harbor provisions and my friends can allow me to carry concealed on their private property [ which is the one place I probably don’t need to.]

        • milesfortis

          Mr Macklin

          DD acid trip has come around, two weeks after this post has gone stale. To me it looks like he’s trolling simply for attention.
          I’m not into feeding a troll and since I’ve seen who he’s replied to, I’m passing the word in places on the post’s commentary where it’s unlikely he’ll be looking.
          Just passing this along for you consideration.

  • DonDrapersAcidTrip

    You have to come up with a way to learn how to use and afford an automobile, which you actually need just to participate and exist in life, how is requiring a class to carry a firearm in public any more of a poor tax.

    • Biker6666

      There is no right to drive a car.

      • DonDrapersAcidTrip

        Okay, try living life without using one for a while and see how well that works out and maybe I’ll listen to pedantic arguments about cars not being a “right”

        • Jim_Macklin

          Buses, bicycles, skateboards, horses, powered kites, many ways to travel. Even legs and feet.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            So try it then

    • milesfortis

      As posted above.
      That’s argument is an anti-gun diversionary tactic busted out may decades ago.
      Please do a better job of defending your point of view.
      What you’re currently doing doesn’t pass high-school debate level.

      • DonDrapersAcidTrip

        What your currently doing is what exactly, saying literally nothing?

        Immediately writing off requiring training before allowing people to carry around devices specifically made to kill people as easily as possibly as “anti-gun diversionary tactic” is what, a rational way of presenting argument? lmao. Sounds like a religious nut response to me.

    • Jim_Macklin

      There is no constitutional right to own or operate a motor vehicle. Anybody, of any age can drive a car on private property, race track or farm field.
      The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right and as I recall, males 16 to 45 years were required to be available for service.
      BTW, “keep” means in your possession, safe from confiscation as the British Army tried to do at Lexington and Concord.

      • yessah3

        That was almost 250 years ago, it couldn’t happen again….

      • DonDrapersAcidTrip

        The right to bear arms was concieved when we had flint lock rifles, not 30 round ar 15s, and literally every reponse to the suggestion on maybe we should require training for these things has been, “Nu uh, god (founding fathers) said otherwise” that’s literally you’re alls arguement here. “because god said so” Like is it any wonder you all get written off as irrational fantatics.

  • jerry young

    I help teach concealed carry classes in Ohio and believe in hands on training, there are so many people that have no idea what end of a gun to hold let alone the safe and proper use of a gun and just the thought of an untrained person like that carring a gun makes me believe in some sort of mandatory training to qualify to carry even more, I believe in our constitutional right to own firearms and while not a big fan of background checks they do serve a purpose when it comes to keeping criminals from carrying guns legally, that said background checks and all the laws that can be thought of won’t stop criminals from carrying guns

  • Bacon Chaser

    My thought is that civil rights do not end at the state border. And if we have national reciprocity for drivers licenses and marriage licenses (neither of which are Constitutionally protected natural born civil rights), then there is no reason we shouldn’t have national reciprocity for carry licenses.

    • Bill

      The big problem with this is that it could go either way. When you are dealing with Uncle Sam, good results are more often accidental than deliberate. One bad vote by someone who doesn’t have to live with the consequences-say a Feinstein or a Schumer-could result in the United States of America living under the same rainbow rules as the People’s Republic of California. Two bad votes when the NFA was enacted would have had us paying for a tax stamp to own a Colt SAA. Thanks but no thanks.

      • yessah3

        Exactly, the interpretation of law and irrational thought is what is driving these politicians towards their agenda. A good portion of the public is misinformed and misled. I love how the anti gun folks point to gun deaths and the 30,000 or so who die each year. But when you factor out suicides, accidents, gang and drug related deaths, you find yourself with a much smaller number. Plus there are many studies that show that the actual number of crimes prevented by the ownership of a gun by a law abiding citizen is in the millions each year. Ignorant people are easily led astray.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    This is edging into the political but since you guys brought it up ill throw in my worthless two cents.
    Basically we need a way to keep guns away from nutjobs or else we are going to lose it all. Just last night another wack-o shot a bunch of people.
    Sure, owning a gun may be a right but the government takes away peoples rights all the time. “Life” and “Liberty” are routinely revoked when we send someone to prison or the death chamber.
    The mental health policies in this country are a joke.

    • Len Jones

      Someone gave him the gun hard to stop that its just going to happen.

      • Jim_Macklin

        At least the ATF has brought charges against the person who supplied the Hesston killer his guns.

    • milesfortis

      IUD, figure out a way to do that that all sides will sign onto.
      Then get back to us, on that point.
      I added that last because you’ll never get any consensus on how to keep your ‘nutjobs’ from acquiring whatever they want.

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        I understand it’s a complicated issue I just don’t want Texas to end up like California.

        • milesfortis

          Man, it’s past complicated.
          And BTW look at California. Seriously.
          They’ve got just about everything on the gun law shopping list already.
          How’s that working for them?

          • yessah3

            Chicago too.

        • Edeco

          Oh NIUD, this is beneath you. Be not afraid. Look at this from a tactical perspective; you’re thinking about what you can lose, rather than what you can win.

          The fence sitters have soft heads and short attention spans. There will always be something that can be made an issue that will grab their attention briefly but that’s it. Those of us who have principle on our side, it’s beneath us to try to pander.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Roger that.

  • Rock or Something

    The decision for national CC reciprocity should be ideally agreed upon by all the States bottom up, not Federal government top down. There has already been great strides in the last couple of years to make this happen, and my CC permit (AZ) is good in the majority of the Union (at least 36?). It does irk me though that I can almost drive from where I live to family in PA legally concealed carry if it weren’t for Maryland. But I can’t fight Maryland’s battle for them, it’s up to the individual citizens in each state to fight for the cause.

    • milesfortis

      I agree, it should be.
      But with states like California (controlled by the anti-gunners in SanFran and LA), New Jersey, New York (controlled by the anti-gunners in Albany and NYC) and yes your mentioned Massholechusets, to name a few, sometimes that ideal isn’t possible.

  • rayward

    Constitutional carry, open or concealed. One year basic military training, culminating with issuing assault rifle, handgun, and ammo, as the basis for a well-regulated militia.

    • Jim_Macklin

      Military service not required. The Militia is expected to appear bearing their PRIVATE arms of the kind then in service. Thus all the proposed assault rifle and magazine bans are unconstitutional. At least that is what the 1939 MILLER case said.
      Gee, maybe that is why the government is pressing for gun laws.

      The People think the Constitution
      Protects their rights.
      Government sees it as an obstacle to be
      over-come.

  • Don1974

    I’ve already got a national carry license, so do you. Its the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    • Len Jones

      Try going into New Jersey with it and get stopped you are going to jail

      • Don1974

        There is a chance of getting caught by law enforcement. Though I’m not telling on myself or voluntarily submitting to a search. However there is still a chance I may get busted. So then the question becomes am I more concerned with losing my freedom by going to jail for not having the proper government “permits” or losing my life by not bringing a gun to a gunfight. I know what I’m choosing.

        • Marcus D.

          Either way, you are dead. Assuming you survive ten years in prison, you will never be allowed to possess a firearm again. And if you have a family and a professional license, you can kiss those good bye too.

          • Don1974

            I’d take my chances at a jury trial. “I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six”.

    • Jim_Macklin

      According to the 1858 Dred Scott SCOUS opinion dicta, you’re correct. But you’d better vote for Cruz or the SEcond Amendment will be neutered by Hillary or Bernie and maybe even Trump.

  • Goody

    Requirement should be the gun shop attendant saying, “Hey if you’re planning to use this to save your life you should get some training on how to use it”

    Not saying the salesperson should be required to say that by law, but it’d be a damn fine way to make a commission with some local instructors, plus get repeat business when the state seizes successfully deployed firearms – dead men buy no replacement pistols.

  • milesfortis

    The lethal (pun intended) problem with your point is that arms are a particularly enumerated right and driving a automobile is only tangential to the right of free association and thus travel.

    The drivers license analogy is a well known diversionary tactic used by anti-gunners. It’s at least 40 years old.
    Get over it, it’s busted.
    Please use something more ‘original’.
    Well actually you can’t with anti-gunners there’s nothing new under the sun.

    The one thing you can not deal with though is that the BOR is a limitation as defined by it’s preamble, on governmental power. Not a limitation on individual rights.
    Sorry you don’t see it that way, but the only point you’;re making is that rights are what you decide you want others to have.

    How tinpot dictator of you.

    • DonDrapersAcidTrip

      I’m saying maybe we should think about requiring training for high capacity semiautomatics. We can still freely offer flint lock revolvers and rifles as hassle free as possible like the founding fathers intended, as long as we’re just going to shut down any kind of thinking or arguments on this topic by just being obtusely literal.

      • Core

        The founding fathers proclaimed the right to bear arms, were unquestionably military arms. If you can read and interpret English, there is no questioning this. I’ve heard arguments claiming otherwise and they are completely invalid. This would include all military arms such as machine guns etc.

        • DonDrapersAcidTrip

          And I’m sure since you so committed to the 2nd amendment your out there supporting black lives matters, since the idea that a black person could go around open carrying or even concealed carrying is nothing but a joke, unless they’re maybe wearing a suit and tie, standing next a white guy, at a predesignated open carry event lol. I’m sure it’s just an odd coincidence gun owners are completely silent about this fact of life. Such integrity and commitment to their ideals lmao

          • Core

            Where I’m from all lives matter, and all law abiding folks can safely carry open or concealed. I would train, and support and defend any law abiding citizen regardless of skin color or religious beliefs. If you live in a little commie nanny slime pit, get off your couch and get to work improving your culture. Otherwise move to one of many places in America that value the Constitution.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            very useful of you just repeating “all lives matter, and all law abiding folks can safely carry open or concealed” as if if just saying it enough times out loud would magically somehow do something about cops shooting unarmed black people. considering you think the phrase “black lives matter” is saying anything about the value of other lives, it’s apparent your not a rocket scientist here

            cue the rambling about commies and freedom, lmao. if guns ever are banned its going to be because gun owners or incapable of communicating or thinking about them past the level of a six year old.

          • Core

            Don get help before you ruin someone else’s life, besides your own.

          • DonDrapersAcidTrip

            Try critically thinking about and analyzing any topic for more than 2 seconds

        • DonDrapersAcidTrip

          “we need guns to overthrow government tyranny”

          “cars are privilege not a right it says right there in subsection heading c of government regulation 134545.6 follow along please”

          lmao

  • Yes we do. Most states require a yearly week long refresher course on various subjects.

    • Jim_Macklin

      That might apply for security guards, PIs and LEO, but most States require training for initial licensing and then if there is any refresher training required it is 4 to 8 hours.

      • yessah3

        Cops are held to a higher scrutiny since they are essentially thrust into many situations where lethal force may be necessary, plus they are considered “experts” (right or wrong) in the use of lethal force. A private citizen “fearing for his or her life” has a much better chance at getting off than a cop “fearing for his/her life”. Especially nowadays.

      • My state only requires a person attend one 8 hour school to get a permit. No follow up training is required.

  • MontieR

    There is NOTHING about gun licencing that is even remotely legal. The right to keep and bear arms is VERY specific and extrodinarily simple. The right of the “people” (not the militia) to keep AND bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Any law, order, regulation or ordinance requiring “permition” from ANY level of government is in DIRECT defiance to the second amendment and as such (as per the constitution it’s self) is NO law at all.

  • Mark Cline

    National Reciprocity…not national licensing. I suppose national licensing would appeal to someone in a state which severely limits citizens from obtaining a CCP, but the requirements may be more restrictive to citizens of states with more reasonable requirements.

  • TRUBOOST

    i do believe there needs to be a standard. its bad enough laws very state to state. but here in IL laws change based on each town. magazine restrictions vary from unlimited to as few as 8 rounds in some towns. how is someone supposed to know the restrictions in all these places?

    • maodeedee

      The national standard should be based on the law in the state of Vermont which is if your are a straight citizen and not a felon of a mental defective you can carry a gun.

      • yessah3

        Maine as well. Was just put into law last October.

  • yessah3

    Exactly, reminds me of the “Saturday night special” argument on cheap handguns. Lawmakers were arguing that they gave criminals a means to murder and rob citizens cheaply, without really understanding that the majority of americans who bought those “Saturday night specials” were poor law abiding americans looking to defend themselves.

  • Keeps

    Why is it an “or”? Why not have State-level licenses as they do now, but also a Universal CCW license? As I drive up north from Florida, I have to unholster my firearm in SC, and leave it exposed on the seat, re-holster it in NC, again while driving at “55 mph”, expose it in VA for open carry, and unholster it, take the magazine out, clear it, lock it, and lock it in my glove compartment for MD – again, at “55 mph”.

    After performing that trick on a recent trip without shooting my foot off, I declared, “I will pay money, take a class, fingerprint, and demonstrate proficiency in order to have a consistent 50 or 48-state accepted carry license!!”

    This exercise is the height of unsafe firearm handling!

  • Richard Lutz

    WE MUST BE RESPONSIBLE

    CCW is a right for adults not being felons or adjudicated incompetents (mental illness, blindness, etc.), so forget about mandatory training or permits. Rather we have to encourage people to undergo training. This could simply be watching a one hour video that covers the basics of CCW, with people who successfully complete a questionnaire afterwards being granted benefits for doing so like a once off tax break. People can redo the course every year and get another once off tax break. Thus nobody is forced to undergo training or pass a test but are rewarded for doing so.

    People who pass this course would be issued with a permit-like document they can carry in their wallet that is proof of their competency and is evidence for the IRS to make the document holder eligible for the tax break. Ideally it could also be used as a CCW permit for nations like the Czech Republic and Switzerland that require people to have undergone some training before being allowed to carry a concealed pistol. Private businesses would be encouraged to allow concealed pistol carriers who possess such a document into their premises who would otherwise be inclined to post “no guns” signs.

    As for open carry, this is insane in built-up areas unless you are a uniformed police officer or security guards as it scares many people so plays into the hands of anti-gun groups. It is tragic that this is allowed and I am sure that people with an anti-gun agenda have supported it as it makes it easier for them to drum up support from people are frightened by this. I can hardly believe it that plain clothes civilians can openly carry pistols and assault rifles as they walk down a city street. It is hard to imagine a worse ‘own goal’ than this as it makes it easier to portray gun owners as unbalanced nutters.

    People must remember that a legal right is just a few words printed on a piece of paper that judges can interpret any way they like. The Second Amendment did not stop the registration of machine guns in 1934, nor the ban on the new manufacture of machine guns in 1986, nor the assault weapon ban in 1994. If we lose the propaganda war all is lost. So if we get cocky and start supporting things like open carry that are overwhelmingly opposed by ordinary Americans we sow the seeds of the destruction of our gun rights. We must be responsible and, just as importantly, be seen to be responsible.

    So how do we make it harder for people with a mental illness who are not adjudicated mental incompetents to get hold of a gun? It seems to me we should make it legal for people to refuse to sell a gun to anyone on the grounds that they suspect they might be mentally ill without being at risk of being imprisoned or sued. They would be immune from criminal prosecution or civil suit for discriminating against someone they thought might be mentally ill even if the refused person claimed the refusal was for another reason like race unless there was clear evidence of this (e.g., video recording).

  • CavScout

    I KNEW this article was done by Katie, and sure enough… TFB, ditch this writor. Just like with the ‘smart gun’ tech, she has been fooled by the gun control crowd.

  • Reginald Hunter

    As much as I hate Big Brother , I do think some additional training should be required before a person is issued a carry permit. I think all license applications should have a skills test as part of the application process. My mother has a permit to carry and she shouldn’t have one. She would hesitate and have the gun taken away from here. Can you imagine issuing a pilot license with out a skills test? I think that additional skills testing should be done when a automobile, pilot, or pistol license is renewed. If I am too old to drive or too feeble to shoot my handgun then I shouldn’t be allowed to do so for my own safety and that of the public