Indiana Senator introduces bill for training requirements

[Bunnykid68]

By force, if necessary.

Yep

 

[88GT]

I also have the right to free speech (including reading/writing), but it is required that I go to school to learn vocabulary and how to read/write. I (my parents) have the option to enroll me in public or private school, or home school; but schooling of some kind is required. Is my right being infringed on because they are making me go to school so I can properly use my freedom of speech?

You just eliminated the justification for licensing. Do you realize that? All that compulsory education requirements and how many people graduate from high school still uneducated? Did you know that the average high schooler is reading literature at a 5th-8th grade level? The same government that provides this kind of education, and you want it to provide a similar compulsive education for firearms instructions? Are you nuts?

On a side note, you are also attempting to justify one government mandate with another government mandate on the premise that the latter itself is justifiable AND within the authority and power of the government to mandate. Aside from the fact that the government has usurped this authority and co-opted the power, and the people have allowed it to happen, such a premise is invalid as a free man cannot be (should not be) coerced by his government take a specific course of action, particularly if/when that course of action is against the individual's best interest. The government can only prohibit certain behaviors, and those limited--in a perfect world--to that which would cause deliberate harm/injury to his fellow citizen. So your example of compulsory education lacks logical validation because a parent should not be mandated to provide education for his child(ren), no matter how horrible you think that might be.

Firearms should be treated similarly. There are many different options of training available, and you should be able to chose which one you prefer, but learning how to properly exercise your right is not an infringement of that right. IMO

I agree. People should be absolutely free to carry what they want when they want (I'll concede a few secured areas for argument's sake) and how they want without the government infringing on that right. No permission slips, no training requirements, no fees.

As a gun owner, I agree with the gentleman above in that I see no harm in requiring training for people to conceal and carry a weapon in public. In many cases (not including guns), our government has to protect the law-abiding, sane, GOOD AMERICANS from those who are not those things. You bring up the word "right". As a citizen, I feel I have the RIGHT to be protected from irresponsible, untrained people carrying deadly weapons. In my opinion, because I have only good intentions for carrying....I have no problem being required to be trained. I understand and respect your stance...just wanted to share mine also.

good discussion always leads to positive ends.

As a free woman, I see irreparable harm in requiring training for people to carry a firearm (concealed is irrelevant, and other "weapons" are not so regulated; let's keep the vocabulary precise). The government has no duty to protect the citizens if by protect you mean prevent harm. (Another side note: it has an equal duty to provide the same protections, such as they are, to the non-law-abiding as well.) So you think you have a right to be protected from irresponsible people, huh? How does that work? I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "right" as it relates to freedom. You only have rights to ACT, for your benefit. Compelling other people to behave in any manner simply for the purpose of improving your lot in life is not a right. There is no inalienable right to force me to do X just so you can Y. Not one. Your right to self defense only extends as far as you have an identifiable and (semi-)immediate threat. Wholesale restrictions of the actions of your fellow citizens just for your benefit is slavery.

Do you mean "schools" as in public/private ones or just education in general? If it's the former I agree. Not forcing minors to be educated just spells bad news all the way around.

Because there are no uneducated children coming out of the compulsory attendance institutions now, right?

 

[looney2ns]

No one is against training. It is a matter of how to obtain it.

Government mandates are feckless. Just look at this bill. Not effective until January 1, 2015. How many LCTHs are there now? 1.4 million now? What about all of them?

What other rights are subject to a barrier to entry? Voting tests? Comparative religion exams? Are there not constitutional amendments against barriers to entry of a right?

Instead of mandates, why not tax deductions? Encourage continual training (not just one inadequate class) by allowing tuition, ammo, travel, lodging costs to be above the line deductions on state income tax. As well, the costs of gun safes would be tax deductions.

It would be optional.

It would put the rhetoric of politicians to the test.

It would give gun owners an incentive to seek training.

 

[KS1956]

Have any of y'all ever read the Heller opinion and what Scalia said in his majority opinion on the term "well-regulated"?

It seems that most of the folks screaming about their rights have no idea. A trained militia would be the modern definition. Training folks.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Have any of y'all ever read the Heller opinion and what Scalia said in his majority opinion on the term "well-regulated"?

It seems that most of the folks screaming about their rights have no idea. A trained militia would be the modern definition. Training folks.

Who cares. It is a prefatory clause and has no bearing on the operative clause.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Have any of y'all ever read the Heller opinion and what Scalia said in his majority opinion on the term "well-regulated"?

It seems that most of the folks screaming about their rights have no idea. A trained militia would be the modern definition. Training folks.

And just because he is too stupid to know what the founders meant means nothing as far as actual rights are concerned

 

[Bunnykid68]

Who cares. It is a prefatory clause and has no bearing on the operative clause.

This ^^^^^

 

[actaeon277]

Have any of y'all ever read the Heller opinion and what Scalia said in his majority opinion on the term "well-regulated"?

It seems that most of the folks screaming about their rights have no idea. A trained militia would be the modern definition. Training folks.

Maybe you'd be happy with the requirements the citizens of Washington D.C. have to go through?
MILLER: Emily gets her gun - Washington Times

Useless training requirements on stuff she doesn't use.
Can't carry outside the home.
Expensive
Red tape.
Bureaucrats throwing out opinions as fact, and being wrong.
Being handed outdated paperwork, to make it harder for you.
Having to travel outside your city to receive training.
Having to travel outside your city to practice.
And the list goes on.

 

[MisterChester]

@88GT I did not say forced education through institutions. I mean that education should be forced, however the means of it (public/private/home schooling) is up to the parents. Lots of dumb kids come out of all those things, but it would be way worse if they had no education whatsoever.

 

[KS1956]

Who cares. It is a prefatory clause and has no bearing on the operative clause.

I see you haven't read Heller.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Maybe you'd be happy with the requirements the citizens of Washington D.C. have to go through?
MILLER: Emily gets her gun - Washington Times

Useless training requirements on stuff she doesn't use.
Can't carry outside the home.
Expensive
Red tape.
Bureaucrats throwing out opinions as fact, and being wrong.
Being handed outdated paperwork, to make it harder for you.
Having to travel outside your city to receive training.
Having to travel outside your city to practice.
And the list goes on.

You left out the fact that they all have to re-register their guns immediately now too

 

[actaeon277]

I see you haven't read Heller.

I see you haven't read some of the documents of our founding father's. That's probably why you rely on others to do your work for you.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I see you haven't read Heller.

Have you read it?
Here you go, I will give you the link. See 1a.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Also read this.

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.

You can find that here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

[Bunnykid68]

Have you read it?
Here you go, I will give you the link. See 1a.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Also read this.


You can find that here.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Wow Steve, that cannot be right can it? This was the 1st thing I read in that decision
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Wow Steve, that cannot be right can it? This was the 1st thing I read in that decision
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

Nope, I just made it all up on the interwebz.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Have any of y'all ever read the Heller opinion and what Scalia said in his majority opinion on the term "well-regulated"?

It seems that most of the folks screaming about their rights have no idea. A trained militia would be the modern definition. Training folks.

Have you read it? I just read Scalia's lead opinion and it said that individuals had the right.

 

[T-DOGG]

What's the dress code for said training? Will clothing be optional? I really just want to wear my gun belt with the holster, I get sweaty really fast, and want to remain cool and calm during these exercises.
I can always wear this also:

 

[strokin7.3]

What's the dress code for said training? Will clothing be optional? I really just want to wear my gun belt with the holster, I get sweaty really fast, and want to remain cool and calm during these exercises.
I can always wear this also:

How you shootin today Thorny?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'm not sure where I stand on this...right vs individual responsibility while doing so? I've been to the range where people (not in training) couldn't hit the side of a barn from 3' even when it wasn't moving! I've seen guys who's rounds ricochet'd off the ceiling, the floor, side walls, etc. I've had friends who have left the same range and came back later rather than shoot with the idiots who were shooting while they were there.

The ability to own and carry a gun for personal protection is a right, one that shall not be infringed. However, it's also a responsibility...to be used appropriately! Not everyone knows and understand the laws, rights, and responsibilities of gun ownership...and definitely all do not show respect for others in the process. Educating people is a large part of continuing to develop responsible (and, hopefully, mature) gun owners! But at what point does 'required' education infringe on the right to self-defense? Tough balance...not always an easy answer!

At what point does required education infringe on the right to self-defense? Simple. When it becomes required.

How is that giving up a right? It would not be mandatory; you could still get your LTCH without training.

Personally, there shouldnt even be a LTCH permit. Why do I need to have a permit to excercise my 2A right?

Assuming you have a LTCH (and I do as well) we both have paid a fee (or sold our rights for chump change)

I was trying to say they could encourage training with lower fees.

I get what you were trying to say. The problem is that the whole premise is wrong. Training is good. Training is something everyone should have. Training is something we should, as a group, make "cool", i.e.:
Gun owner:"I just took NRA Basic Pistol (or whatever other training) last weekend."
Everyone else: "Cool! Great! Fantastic! Good on you!" "Proud of you!"

Likewise, tipping your servers when you go out to eat is good. It's something everyone should do. It's something that should be expected.
It is NOT something that should be required by law. I usually tip 20% at a minimum. If a restaurant I go to tacks a 15% gratuity onto my bill, the manager will hear about it, probably the owner, too. That server will get EXACTLY, to the penny, that 15%. Not one cent more or less, and I will tell them why. The restaurant will never see me in there again, and I will make a point of bad-mouthing them in perpetuity. Don't force me to do what you think is the right thing. I'm a [strike]big boy[/strike] free American, I can make those decisions for myself.

I also have the right to free speech (including reading/writing), but it is required that I go to school to learn vocabulary and how to read/write. I (my parents) have the option to enroll me in public or private school, or home school; but schooling of some kind is required. Is my right being infringed on because they are making me go to school so I can properly use my freedom of speech?

Firearms should be treated similarly. There are many different options of training available, and you should be able to chose which one you prefer, but learning how to properly exercise your right is not an infringement of that right. IMO

Show that you can learn for yourself how to read, write, and calculate correctly, and I agree you should not have to be forced into an educational system. However, not knowing what the letters sound like and how to spell and read will make learning on your own very difficult.

Do you have firearms training? If not, you are acting hypocritically (or do you need a law on paper to tell you what you must do?) If you do have that training, Surprise, surprise! And you didn't even need a law to tell you to do it. Why can you not comprehend that others can make the same choices, and they don't have to choose exactly as you did?

As a gun owner, I agree with the gentleman above in that I see no harm in requiring training for people to conceal and carry a weapon in public. In many cases (not including guns), our government has to protect the law-abiding, sane, GOOD AMERICANS from those who are not those things. You bring up the word "right". As a citizen, I feel I have the RIGHT to be protected from irresponsible, untrained people carrying deadly weapons. In my opinion, because I have only good intentions for carrying....I have no problem being required to be trained. I understand and respect your stance...just wanted to share mine also.

good discussion always leads to positive ends.

You're right, Dan, you have a right to your opinion. You do not have the right to force others to do something for your comfort, your desire to feel safe. You have a right to make yourself safe, to the best of your ability. That means if you're at an unmonitored range and see unsafe behavior, you have the right to ask them to change it, or you have the right to leave. Take whatever training you want. Recommend it, promote it, shout it from the highest mountain... But don't you (hypothetical "you) dare try to tell me I MUST take it because you did.

Do you mean "schools" as in public/private ones or just education in general? If it's the former I agree. Not forcing minors to be educated just spells bad news all the way around.

Forcing any adult to do anything is bad news all the way around. For anyone but the child's parents to try to force them to do something is bad news, too. Force is what you do when you don't have a convincing enough argument to persuade others to think like you do.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

How you shootin today Thorny?

Oh, that little guy? Don't you worry about that little guy there.