Indiana Senator introduces bill for training requirements

[Bill B]

What is the purpose of the training this new law would require? To bring us into "compliance" with what other states want? Who cares what other states want. California and Illinois would love for Indiana to not allow carry at all, are we going to change our laws to comply with their wishes? If you want to carry in Ohio, fine, but don't force me to jump through additional hoops, and waste more time and money for something you wish to do. There is a mechanism in place for you to carry in Ohio (or other states) it's up to the individual to use it.
Is this training intended to prevent/reduce "incidents" involving licensed carries? If so, I would challenge the author, or any supporter, to provide evidence of the "incidents" they are trying to reduce. The best place to look would probably the ISP to see how many licenses have been suspended or revoked after the hearing. I bet most of them are for acts that "training" would have not have made one iota of difference.
All the talk about Heller and the 2A is interesting, but why go that far? Article 1, Section 32 of the Indiana Constitution:

"The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
Article 12, Section 1: A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

 

[KS1956]

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.

Well, sir, Heller is the law of the land. If you missed your civics lessons, I can't help you.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Well, sir, Heller is the law of the land. If you missed your civics lessons, I can't help you.

Read posts #133-136 so you can see how foolish you are.

 

[actaeon277]

Well, sir, Heller is the law of the land. If you missed your civics lessons, I can't help you.

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.

KS1956, Maybe, some of your "smartness" should be used to read the entire decision, not just pick one part.

 

[rockhopper46038]

I take it you haven't made it down the post list a little further yet.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Oops. Late.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Or she is ignoring fact to live in her own reality. Tends to happen.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Well, sir, Heller is the law of the land. If you missed your civics lessons, I can't help you.

Heller clearly states that it is an individual right. Have no idea what you are reading.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Guys... Keep it focused on the subject matter, not the people.

 

[actaeon277]

edited so BOR doesn't come down on me

 

[KS1956]

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

Scalia's opinion is a larger writing than this; however, as many have problems getting past a few sentences, much less a lengthy opinion, please refer to:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

I really think you fellas should read the full opinion, if you have not. The right to bear arms, with certain restrictions, is guaranteed. But, beyond the home, those rights are limited. And the states have the right to license and restrict where, how and under what conditions carry outside the home is permissable.

 

[rockhopper46038]

Scalia's opinion is a larger writing than this; however, as many have problems getting past a few sentences, much less a lengthy opinion, please refer to:



I really think you fellas should read the full opinion, if you have not. The right to bear arms, with certain restrictions, is guaranteed. But, beyond the home, those rights are limited. And the states have the right to license and restrict where, how and under what conditions carry outside the home is permissable.

Many people believe this. We must work harder to correct this all too common misunderstanding.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Scalia's opinion is a larger writing than this; however, as many have problems getting past a few sentences, much less a lengthy opinion, please refer to:



I really think you fellas should read the full opinion, if you have not. The right to bear arms, with certain restrictions, is guaranteed. But, beyond the home, those rights are limited. And the states have the right to license and restrict where, how and under what conditions carry outside the home is permissable.

So you're reply is a straw man argument? This was never the argument I made or you made. The color blue is better than black.

Edit: FYI, you started off by talking about what well-regulated means. I suggest you go back and reread the posts. Either way, it has no bearing on the OP.

 

[actaeon277]

Ok KS, since we obviously disagree on the meaning of "shall not be infringed", let's go ahead and look at the next problem
Requiring training???? To fix what problem???
Seems to me, the states with the most training, have the most problems.
In fact, expand that to the states with the most restrictions, have the most problems.

So, you are advocating fixing a problem, that does not exist here.

 

[88GT]

@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.

I know what you meant. And I still disagree with it. I submit that your idea of education is ass-in-seat and has no real relationship to the idea of learning and knowledge. You seem content to coerce parents to go through the motions without any real regard to the outcome, rendering your "forced educations" utterly meaningless. Additionally, since "no education" is exactly what we still get under your compulsory attendance requirements, I am wondering how it is that you see forcing attendance in any institution is in any way indicative of the outcome. IOW, we wouldn't have a bit of difference in the outcome if the compulsory attendance laws were repealed. Parents who wanted their child to receive an education would see to it that their children received an education. Parents who don't care wouldn't care. Which isn't much different than what we have now, is it?

Well, sir, Heller is the law of the land. If you missed your civics lessons, I can't help you.

"Law of the land" is a very poor excuse for justification. And it smacks of a weak argument. It is also indicative of intellectual laziness and/or statist tendencies. Slavery was once the law of the land. Prohibition was once the law of the land. Forced attendance at church was once the law of the land. Were they somehow morally right when they were the law of the land, but not morally right when "society" decided they were morally wrong?

 

[KS1956]

So you're reply is a straw man argument? This was never the argument I made or you made. The color blue is better than black.

Edit: FYI, you started off by talking about what well-regulated means. I suggest you go back and reread the posts. Either way, it has no bearing on the OP.

It is not a straw man. For some reason, people seem to avoid common sense when arguing the 2A. No where should it be necessary to say that you must know how to use the weapon you intend to wield. It is implied and without argument.

I'm missing a quote somewhere, that the prefatory clause supports and comports with the operative clause. My bad. I don't feel like digging through Scalia tonight.

 

[KS1956]

"Law of the land" is a very poor excuse for justification. And it smacks of a weak argument. It is also indicative of intellectual laziness and/or statist tendencies. Slavery was once the law of the land. Prohibition was once the law of the land. Forced attendance at church was once the law of the land. Were they somehow morally right when they were the law of the land, but not morally right when "society" decided they were morally wrong?

Read Marbury v Madison. It has been in operation since 1803.

Parsing the law to fit your view is not very helpful and not consistent with the way we have operated for over 200 years. If you deny Marbury v. you deny the Heller decision and all others, along with the authority of the courts. I'm sure you didn't intend that.

Weak argument? No. It is the only argument necessary on this point. And do yourself a favor, pejorative adjectives don't serve to re-inforce your arguments.

 

[88GT]

It is not a straw man. For some reason, people seem to avoid common sense when arguing the 2A. No where should it be necessary to say that you must know how to use the weapon you intend to wield. It is implied and without argument.

I'm missing a quote somewhere, that the prefatory clause supports and comports with the operative clause.

Well, it's clearly not without argument. And you have shown no evidence for the implication that the individual should know how to use it as a prerequisite for owning/carry one. If you are arguing that it is bad form and poor judgment to carry without the knowledge, you will be hard-pressed to find someone who disagrees with you on these boards. It appears that you are conflating good sense with legal requirements.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Oh yes, the common sense argument.

No where should it be necessary to say that you must know how to use the weapon you intend to wield.

So you agree that training should not be written in law?

I'm missing a quote somewhere, that the prefatory clause supports and comports with the operative clause.

Yes, it does. You are correct. The 2 Amendment means the exact same thing without that support clause though. Look at the Indiana Constitution.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Read Marbury v Madison. It has been in operation since 1803.

Parsing the law to fit your view is not very helpful and not consistent with the way we have operated for over 200 years. If you deny Marbury v. you deny the Heller decision and all others, along with the authority of the courts. I'm sure you didn't intend that.

Weak argument? No. It is the only argument necessary on this point. And do yourself a favor, pejorative adjectives don't serve to re-inforce your arguments.

Did you not learn in high school or earlier that a given relationship does not establish it converse as fact?

Marbury v. Madison established that any law which conflicts with the Constitution is null and void. This does not support the notion that any section of the Constitution which conflicts with a law or a court decision is null and void, which is exactly what you are trying to argue. Neither the Constitution nor Marbury v. Madison support the notion that the law of the land is WTF-ever 5 out of 9 people in black robes say it is. Their constitutional mandate is to interpret the law according to the Constitution, not make it up as they go along to suit their own personal opinions and preferences.