Any opinions out there? I'm against government-mandated training. I feel minors should be trained by parents in the use of firearms. I just don't see how telling a parent that they need to train their child is NOT a form of government-mandated training. I FULLY support the 2nd Amendment. That being said, I do believe that the issue of minors is a bit more difficult. I DO think that minors should have the ability to keep and bear arms. I AM against all government mandated training for the use of firearms. However, it can't be denied that EVERYONE needs instruction at one time or another. Do we simply hand over an AR-15 to a 13 year-old child without some proper training? If training is needed, should the .gov hold the parents responsible? Then we are right back in the circle of "do we want the .gov to mandate training? No. Is training needed? Yes. Do we impose a penalty if the parent doesn't train the child? Possibly. Is that a form of government mandated training? Possibly."
I FULLY support the 2nd Amendment. That being said, I do believe that the issue of minors is a bit more difficult. I DO think that minors should have the ability to keep and bear arms. I AM against all government mandated training for the use of firearms. However, it can't be denied that EVERYONE needs instruction at one time or another. Do we simply hand over an AR-15 to a 13 year-old child without some proper training? If training is needed, should the .gov hold the parents responsible? Then we are right back in the circle of "do we want the .gov to mandate training? No. Is training needed? Yes. Do we impose a penalty if the parent doesn't train the child? Possibly. Is that a form of government mandated training? Possibly."
YES!!! Up to and including giving firearms back to convicted felons after they serve their sentence. Because if they were not safe enough to be on the street, then why were they let out? We should also be able to own any weapon the governemt owns, including nukes.
I never really thought about whether or not criminals should be allowed to carry a weapon, and when I did think about it, the thought uphalled me. Now that it's brought to my attention, I do fully support the 2nd amendment, and I think a serious reform of our criminal justice system would compliment that. STOP imprisoning people for smoking pot and driving drunk, and start imprisoning violent offenders longer.UNINFRINGED!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you are a free citizen (Not in jail or under arrest atm) then you should be free to carry.
I've asked this question before and I don't recall anyone answering it without crossing the "prior restraint" line.
If, as a young man of 18, you got in with the wrong crowd and did some stupid things (like maybe being present when they were out boosting stereos, etc... not doing anything but just being there... and you were caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced... Let's say the judge was lenient and only sentenced you to 370 days in jail. You're now 20, by the time the case comes to trial and the sentence is handed down and served, and you're out, now with a criminal record. While you were in, you had time to reflect on what your so-called friends did and now, more mature, you know that you should have gotten out of the car and walked home, if that's what it took... should have called the cops, whatever. Fast forward four years. You've gone to college and earned your associates degree in something or other and had time to meet a nice young lady, settle down, buy a home, maybe even have a baby or just one on the way.
Why should you not have the right to protect and defend yourself and your family from those who might do you or them harm?
Granted, this is a "perfect" example, and all, hell, even most cases will not be so obvious. In addition, after some period of time, I'm not sure how long, you can petition the court to reduce your listed crime to a misdemeanor or can petition for a full pardon. All that said, though, when you first left prison, you had made the decision to turn your life around, but your former buddies might not have done so. Why should you be defenseless when they show up? THEY sure won't be!
It should be defined on what you do with the gun, not just that you have it. I'd take no issue at all with a former felon owning a firearm and using it to defend himself or his family. Maybe to ease into it, we could define that they can't yet qualify for a LTCH, but can have one at home lawfully, but the goal, IMHO, should be to move toward the removal of regulations that bind only those who obey the law.
Blessings,
Bill
Slow down there, and READ the post. I AM fully for the 2nd Amendment, and my posts speak for themselves. I was asking what I felt to be a valid question. I agree that it's up to the parents. I suppose my conclusion is that regardless of how we may see a minor handling a firearm, it is the PARENT'S responsibility to ensure that they handle it correctly. Not yours, not mine, and not the government's. If you see a minor handling a firearm unsafely, and they are with their parent(s), then you have absolutely no standing to go speak with them about their unsafe handling of a firearm. It's the parent's responsibility.
If Jack ran for sheriff in my county, I'd vote for him!
Well, there you have it. There's a new Sheriff in town. Name's Jack Ryan.
Now y'all mind yer manners and behave real peaceable-like, and we'll have no trouble.
