# More states for no permit concealed carry



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

These states are poised to allow people to carry hidden guns around without a permit - The Washington Post


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

I like the idea. We will never get back to " Shall not be infringed" but it is a good step in the right direction.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Sadly, I doubt that Texas will join in this, simply because we have no state income tax, so the budget requires vigorous licensing fees to offset that.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

This is the way it ought to be! There should be no permit required for any kind of carry. The government has no right nor authority to restrict that by any measure.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

Well - I tend to agree with GCBHM. 
But I had helped out during a TX CHL shooting test on the range and it was unbelievable how little to none people know about weapon and weapon safety even when they apply for a concealed carry test. I'll think we expect to much. The most running around with a by the school system purposefully lowered IQ of a fruit fly that have never seen a gun or never learned any gun safety. Not everyone out there has our level of weapon understanding than such nutcases like us that write in a weapon forum. And I am sorry some questions in weapon forums about a weapon I find... well at least they try to inform themselves. 
Now the Millenniums coming and they are absolutely entitled to almost any and everything because they exist. The believe everyone else have to take responsibly for their actions. Do U really want to give the Millenniums a firearm regardless? 
Just sit in a Mal and watch the moms with their 5 kids, do you really want to give her a firearm without any question ask, she cannot take care oin her kids believes everyone else in the Mal have to do that and their kids are deatly forces out of control. You want to give her in addition a loaded firearm? Are U sure? This morning the TV again reports (if its true) that a child shoot themselves accidentally in the belly. What did the parents or the parent do and how do they handle a gun in that house? Who is really running the show there? The children like often that I see?
Just watch in WalMart the people going in and out and thing each of them would have a loaded firearm. That is really scary and makes you goosebumps. 

I tend to say everyone should be able to carry a firearm regardless. But as long as we don't coming back to our senses and raising the kids again as responsible, for their own actions responsible citizens, I'll think we need prove that the person that want carry a firearm at least is responsible, understands the danger of that tool and can at least handle gun safety. That means a capability test. 
Sorry.
And now U can call me a liberal. Hahaha


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> This is the way it ought to be! There should be no permit required for any kind of carry. The government has no right nor authority to restrict that by any measure.


Honestly, though - there should be a mandatory training period. The thought of some of the world's idiots waking around with guns and NO training scares the crap out of me.

Some of the idiots WITH training do things that scare the crap out of me....


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> <snippage!> That means a capability test.
> Sorry.
> And now U can call me a liberal. Hahaha


Yes! Don't apologise - and I would never call you a Liberal or a liberal - just sensible in this instance.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I'm not entirely opposed to a capability test except that it infringes our right to keep AND bear arms. The government should have absolutley NO, ZERO say in who carries what or what they carry.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Honestly, though - there should be a mandatory training period. The thought of some of the world's idiots waking around with guns and NO training scares the crap out of me.
> 
> Some of the idiots WITH training do things that scare the crap out of me....


And think about all those wouldbe thugs who you know have top shelf training carrying Glocks (Hi=Points). No, although I do prefer people have training, at least of the basic course, any government control over it is completely against liberty, and infringes our right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## shootbrownelk (May 18, 2014)

Bisley said:


> Sadly, I doubt that Texas will join in this, simply because we have no state income tax, so the budget requires vigorous licensing fees to offset that.


 Wyoming has no state income tax either, and we can carry without a permit.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> I'm not entirely opposed to a capability test except that it infringes our right to keep AND bear arms. The government should have absolutley NO, ZERO say in who carries what or what they carry.


And so, simply because cars didn't exist then and therefore weren't mentioned, you would prefer to see no driving test required? That is, in effect, what you're saying.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> And think about all those wouldbe thugs who you know have top shelf training carrying Glocks (Hi=Points). <snip silliness>


That's not the point, and you know it.

I give up.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> And so, simply because cars didn't exist then and therefore weren't mentioned, you would prefer to see no driving test required? That is, in effect, what you're saying.


No, that is what you are saying. I stated that although I would prefer for people to have training, I am opposed to government controls of any kind. Simply stated, you can't compare cars to guns. No one has a right to drive as protected by the BoR; however, we do have the right to keep and bear arms as acknowledged by that document.

Having said that, operating a car is a bit more complicated than operating a gun, and it puts more people at risk; therefore, one must prove they deserve the privilege of operating one. Now, there are some folks who have no business with a gun, or anything that could hurt themselves or others, as prescribed by a doctor in the order of mental defects, but that isn't the point of this thread.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> That's not the point, and you know it.
> 
> I give up.


The point, as I meant it, is that no amount of government control is going to ensure safety. No matter how many laws it enacts, there will always be someone who ignores it and goes their merry way. Hence, any government control is senseless.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

shootbrownelk said:


> Wyoming has no state income tax either, and we can carry without a permit.


Yeah, I like Wyoming that way.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I read something recently that Wyoming was the most conservative state in America. If it weren't so cold there in the winters, I'd like to move there.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> The point, as I meant it, is that no amount of government control is going to ensure safety. No matter how many laws it enacts, there will always be someone who ignores it and goes their merry way. Hence, any government control is senseless.


And straight back to "if it isn't 100% then it's not worth doing." No lethal weapon should be allowed to be owned and used, and especially carried, without a safety briefing. That is NOT "infringement" (which for some reason is more sacred to you than people's right to life)


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> The point, as I meant it, is that no amount of government control is going to ensure safety. No matter how many laws it enacts, there will always be someone who ignores it and goes their merry way. Hence, any government control is senseless.


Sorry, I forgot to say "duh!" Like people who have passed a driving test occasionally speed.

We know that, but it does help keep down the fatalities by insisting on one.....

PLEASE tell me you understand that logic. Please?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> And straight back to "if it isn't 100% then it's not worth doing." No lethal weapon should be allowed to be owned and used, and especially carried, without a safety briefing. That is NOT "infringement" (which for some reason is more sacred to you than people's right to life)


If you restrict one right, you have infrigned the right to life. If that person, who has not passed a test, for which there could be many reasons, to be able to carry the gun is unable to use a gun to defend their life, then what good has the test done? And what is the purpose of that test? To keep others safe? Again, no measure of government control is going to ensure safety. The person who cannot pass said test is surely going to carry a gun if they want to, so again, any government measure to control firearms is futile, and no, it does not help keep fatalities down. That is a myth.

The right to bear arms has no restrictions on it whatsoever, and it is intended not to. The very basic right to life is the primary reason for the right to bear arms, and the government should have no say in it at all, period. Now, wrt training, let basic gun safety and responsibility be taught at the earliest possible age, but not by any government agency requiring it to license one to carry.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> If you restrict one right, you have infrigned the right to life. <snip dubious logic>
> 
> The right to bear arms has no restrictions on it whatsoever, and it is intended not to. <snip more>


Disagree 100% with the first part there. If some "idiot with gun" who has no training shoots me by mistake, then MY rights have been infringed. Big time.

Taking a safety course is not an infringement - it is a courtesy to the rest of the general public. I know that in Anarchists' Heaven that doesn't matter because everyone is responsible for themselves and no-one else matters, but we are living in the Real World here, where common courtesy and consideration (like not shooting people "by accident") DO matter, whichever side of the political aisle you sit.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Sorry, I forgot to say "duh!" Like people who have passed a driving test occasionally speed.
> 
> We know that, but it does help keep down the fatalities by insisting on one.....
> 
> PLEASE tell me you understand that logic. Please?


What is the fatality rate on the Autobahn? The logic is not sound. Comparing cars to guns is like comparing apples to pigs. There is a stark contrast in government control and the laws society set. Society clearly does not want gun control regardless of how many elitist morons insist we need it. NO AMOUNT OF GUN CONTROL WILL ENSURE SAFETY. Surely you understand that logic.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Disagree 100% with the first part there. If some "idiot with gun" who has no training shoots me by mistake, then MY rights have been infringed. Big time.
> 
> Taking a safety course is not an infringement - it is a courtesy to the rest of the general public. I know that in Anarchists' Heaven that doesn't matter because everyone is responsible for themselves and no-one else matters, but we are living in the Real World here, where common courtesy and consideration (like not shooting people "by accident") DO matter, whichever side of the political aisle you sit.


Your right to what, exactly? What is the difference in that and that same idiot jumping behind the wheel of a car drunk and plowing into you, killing you, leaving your family without a father/husband? Have those DUI laws ensured safety? What was the rate of drunk driving fatalities prior to that law?

With drugs, has the war on drugs helped that problem or made it worse?

How about the prohibition in the 20s? Better or worse for wear?

The simple fact of the matter is that government controls do not help. People still ignore them to do what they want reagardless.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> <snip-de-dip>NO AMOUNT OF GUN CONTROL WILL ENSURE SAFETY. Surely you understand that logic.


You don't have to shout - it doesn't make it more right. Totally agree. But if you think anything less than 100% means you don't have to bother, well, don't drive through my town, 'K? And don't bring a gun to my town, either. If manufacturers thought that way, there would be no safety recalls, there would be horrendous insurance rates as well. Think.


----------



## Lee Hunter (May 25, 2011)

Indiana is a relatively pro-2nd Amendment State. But I once read where one of our 'illustrious' representatives stated, "We're not just going to let anyone walk around with a gun on them without first obtaining a permit." In other words, we're going to require our citizens to pay us revenue before we allow them to engage in one of their basic rights. :roll:

BTW, aside from basic rifle training in the army, I'm completely self-educated concerning every aspect of firearms and ballistics. And after all this time, I'll be danged if I'm going to let some arrogant chrome dome wearing dark shades, 5/11s, and a tactical vest tell me how to handle my firearms. Thankfully, IN doesn't require any kind of invasive training or testing, and the media isn't reporting an inordinate number of careless shooting incidents as they surely would if they could. So, I say dump the requirement to obtain permits. But as long as greed is a prohibitive factor, this will probably never happen in my lifetime.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> Honestly, though - there should be a mandatory training period. The thought of some of the world's idiots waking around with guns and NO training scares the crap out of me.
> 
> Some of the idiots WITH training do things that scare the crap out of me....


it doesn't scare the crap out of you that someone with no training or experience can buy a 40' Class A motor home and drive it to Florida with just a regular operator's license, but to drive a commercial truck over 26,000 gvw you have to have a special license, special road test, and some level of experience? Who's kidding who here? It's all about the money. The RV industry has very successfully fought against commercial license requirements for a Class A RV driver who can drive a 40 footer "legally" with no training and no experience. Never mind they could potentially wipe out a school bus carrying 60 kids on the interstate, they don't need anything but the money to buy and the salesman tosses them the keys and says "have a nice trip to Florida". But we have to restrict guns to "only those with training"?????? Doesn't appear to be a level playing field, does it??? Now I'm not saying training isn't warranted What I am saying is that if you want to make everyone safer, make oversize vehicle operation subject to training. NO laws on that now "unless you are doing it for a living, then they want to tax and "fee" the crap out of you.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

I would like to have a mandatory gun safety class starting in junior high. I can at least dream right?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> You don't have to shout - it doesn't make it more right. Totally agree. But if you think anything less than 100% means you don't have to bother, well, don't drive through my town, 'K? And don't bring a gun to my town, either. If manufacturers thought that way, there would be no safety recalls, there would be horrendous insurance rates as well. Think.


I don't know where you keep coming up with this 100% thing. If no amount of gun control will ensure safety, then only 0% is needed. I have thought about it quite a bit, actually, which is how I have come to these conclusions. Assuming I haven't b/c I don't see it from your point of view is quite presumptuous and arrogant.

Again, comparing cars to guns is not sound logic. You are 1000 times more likely to die in a car accident than to die from being shot with a gun, in any way. Why? First, b/c everyone uses cars a lot more than they use guns. You do it more, so you are more likely to suffer loss from it than from a gun. Also, driving effects more people than guns do. I believe training for both is wise, but one is a fundamental right where one is not. Rights and privileges are very different. I think everyone should have at least a basic knowledge of guns and gun safety, but that should not be a government requirement. Government should have no say whatsoever in it.

However, if the government really wanted to make society safer, it would mandate training at the earliest level and regulate it just like driving. The fact that they don't, rather engaging an agenda to restrict access to guns and take them off the streets should tell you all you need to know about their motives. They do not want to make you safe. They want to control you!


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> I would like to have a mandatory gun safety class starting in junior high. I can at least dream right?


I think it should be taught in schools, just like driver's ed. But I do not agree with the government having any input into any type of education either, so you can imagine where I would go. No government influence in education means that we are better taught the actual truth.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> I think it should be taught in schools, just like driver's ed. But I do not agree with the government having any input into any type of education either, so you can imagine where I would go. No government influence in education means that we are better taught the actual truth.


Aaaaargh!! Overload!! Terminal logic leak!!


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> it doesn't scare the crap out of you that someone with no training or experience can buy a 40' Class A motor home and drive it to Florida with just a regular operator's license, but to drive a commercial truck over 26,000 gvw you have to have a special license, special road test, and some level of experience? Who's kidding who here? It's all about the money. The RV industry has very successfully fought against commercial license requirements for a Class A RV driver who can drive a 40 footer "legally" with no training and no experience. Never mind they could potentially wipe out a school bus carrying 60 kids on the interstate, they don't need anything but the money to buy and the salesman tosses them the keys and says "have a nice trip to Florida". But we have to restrict guns to "only those with training"?????? Doesn't appear to be a level playing field, does it??? Now I'm not saying training isn't warranted What I am saying is that if you want to make everyone safer, make oversize vehicle operation subject to training. NO laws on that now "unless you are doing it for a living, then they want to tax and "fee" the crap out of you.


What I don't get is how anyone can actually believe that having a license to do something makes you more competent, and us safer. The majority of mishaps in any realm occur as the result of carelessness, not incompetence. Restricting access to guns is not going to eliminate the element of careless choices. Making people pass a test to be able to carry a gun, while wise, is not going to eliminate the element of careless choice. You cannot legislate safety! The ONLY thing that will serve to actually reduce said mishaps is education, training and accountability.

Education is knowledge of a subject. Training enables one to act safetly and competently with that knowledge, and accountability holds one in check should they choose to behave stupidly. You want to make people more accountable? Punish the shit out of them if they intentionally hurt others. Train them IF they have hurt someone by accident, but to restrict anyone from exercising a basic right for fear they might hurt you is simply misguided.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Aaaaargh!! Overload!! Terminal logic leak!!


Well, I've told you for some time now your logic is lacking. Perhaps you should take a break?


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> What I don't get is how anyone can actually believe that having a license to do something makes you more competent, and us safer. The majority of mishaps in any realm occur as the result of carelessness, not incompetence. Restricting access to guns is not going to eliminate the element of careless choices. Making people pass a test to be able to carry a gun, while wise, is not going to eliminate the element of careless choice. You cannot legislate safety! The ONLY thing that will serve to actually reduce said mishaps is education, training and accountability.
> 
> Education is knowledge of a subject. Training enables one to act safetly and competently with that knowledge, and accountability holds one in check should they choose to behave stupidly. You want to make people more accountable? Punish the shit out of them if they intentionally hurt others. Train them IF they have hurt someone by accident, but to restrict anyone from exercising a basic right for fear they might hurt you is simply misguided.


The license doesn't make any of us safer. the training does increase the likelihood that someone will use the item in a safe, responsible manner and will therefore make everyone safer. I'm all for training. I do not advocate allowing just anyone to pack a handgun or even a long gun for that matter without some degree of training. Whether the training is informal from another experienced user, or formal from an experienced pro, training adds to the safety factor for us all. Now just how far you go to require training is a matter for the states to work out, but I think it's hard to argue with the fact that "some" training, even it if's only an 8 hour class in basic law and safety procedures, is better than no training at all. Just like I said earlier, it's better for somebody to have some experience driving an oversize vehicle when they are going to drive a class A 40 foot motorhome than to never have driven anything larger than a 4 door sedan. The two units just do not handle the same nor to they take the same clearances on the road, etc. But current law says it's ok for anyone with a regular "car" operator's license to drive a 40 footer on any highway in this country. Doesn't make sense to me when you require the guy that drives a 40 foot semi rig to have a commercial drivers license and pass a separate road test to qualify him to legally drive that rig. Licensing is useless and all driven by politics, not by safety. Just like handgun licensing is driven by the politics of control, not by public safety.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> The license doesn't make any of us safer. *the training does increase the likelihood that someone will use the item in a safe, responsible manner and will therefore make everyone safer*. I'm all for training. I do not advocate allowing just anyone to pack a handgun or even a long gun for that matter without some degree of training. Whether the training is informal from another experienced user, or formal from an experienced pro, training adds to the safety factor for us all. Now just how far you go to require training is a matter for the states to work out, but I think it's hard to argue with the fact that "some" training, even it if's only an 8 hour class in basic law and safety procedures, is better than no training at all.


Increasing the likelihood of something does not necessarily make anyone safer. Like I said, I promote training. However, again, that alone does not ensure safety. That does not mean we should just disregard it altogether, as Sail seems to think, but it does not mean that I support any type of restrictions on who can carry a gun or what kind of gun they carry.

If training made us safer, there would be a lot less crime, a lot fewer accidents, and a lot fewer hospitals. While training does increase the likelihood that people will use it, it does not ensure they will use it. How many people do we know pass a test only for the certificate, and then completely disregards anything they were supposed to learn in the process to act however they please?

Prisons, hospitals and cemetaries are full of them! At the end of the day, you simply just cannot legislate safety, but that isn't what the government wants to do here. That is not why more states are moving to "constitutional carry". It is not about safety. It is about control vs liberty.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

GCBHM said:


> I think it should be taught in schools, just like driver's ed. But I do not agree with the government having any input into any type of education either, so you can imagine where I would go. No government influence in education means that we are better taught the actual truth.


Do they even still teach Driver's Ed in school?

I took it and I was able to get my driver's license at age 15 1/2.

My grand-son turned 15 last December. They don't have any type of shop classes, like wood-working, metal shop, electronics, or power mechanics class.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:


> it doesn't scare the crap out of you that someone with no training or experience can buy a 40' Class A motor home and drive it to Florida with just a regular operator's license, but to drive a commercial truck over 26,000 gvw you have to have a special license, special road test, and some level of experience?


I went through that in trucking school. The main difference in driving tractor trailers and motor homes is maintaining engine control and stopping, both go hand in hand. However you do need a special license to drive a bus which is similar to a Class A motor home. A license to drive a bus does not allow you to drive a tractor trailer nor does a license to drive a tractor trailer allow you to drive a bus. At least it didn't when I went to school.

I also took tactical handgun courses and a course that was required to get a concealed weapons permit in Arizona. That being said Arizona is a "Constitutional Carry" state where no permit is required to carry open or concealed. Have there been firearms accidents? Of course, just as there have been vehicle accidents, probably no more than in states that require a permit. More people drown in swimming pools than by accidental deaths by firearms. All of the "blood in the streets" arguments that were made prior to Arizona enacting "Constitutional Carry" never happened. Maybe it's because we have always been a gun friendly state and children were taught at an early age to respect firearms. Not so in states that are hostile to the 2nd Amendment. So it's not surprising that residents of those states have an inordinate fear of guns and the people that carry them. I kind of like the way things are here in Arizona. We always allowed open carry without a permit. Why would concealed carry be any different? I am a firm believer in "Constitutional Carry" once the government bureaucracy gets involved it is often used to deny people their 2nd Amendment rights. Implementing hurdles and excessive costs that are designed to discourage firearms ownership. Which is typical in states that have the most restrictive laws. Some states require the guns to be registered and listed on the permit. The permittee is only allowed to possess those which are on the permit. This could lead to the possible confiscation of those guns. Such as what has happened in New York with the passage of the "Safe Act" which now outlaws magazines that hold over 10 rounds. People with legally registered handguns that came standard with magazines that exceed that capacity could now be subject to criminal prosecution. In Arizona a permittee is not required to register their guns, the government has no idea whether you have one gun or a hundred or what type. People such as myself have permits for reciprocity purposes with other states. Only because those states require their residents to have a permit. If all states went "Constitutional Carry" there would be no need for a permit anywhere which is how it should be. The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, not a privilege.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> Do they even still teach Driver's Ed in school?
> 
> I took it and I was able to get my driver's license at age 15 1/2.


They do, and it helps reduce insurance costs now.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

desertman said:


> RK3369:
> 
> I went through that in trucking school. The main difference in driving tractor trailers and motor homes is maintaining engine control and stopping, both go hand in hand. However you do need a special license to drive a bus which is similar to a Class A motor home. A license to drive a bus does not allow you to drive a tractor trailer nor does a license to drive a tractor trailer allow you to drive a bus. At least it didn't when I went to school.
> 
> I also took tactical handgun courses and a course that was required to get a concealed weapons permit in Arizona. That being said Arizona is a "Constitutional Carry" state where no permit is required to carry open or concealed. Have there been firearms accidents? Of course, just as there have been vehicle accidents, probably no more than in states that require a permit. More people drown in swimming pools than by accidental deaths by firearms. All of the "blood in the streets" arguments that were made prior to Arizona enacting "Constitutional Carry" never happened. Maybe it's because we have always been a gun friendly state and children were taught at an early age to respect firearms. Not so in states that are hostile to the 2nd Amendment. So it's not surprising that residents of those states have an inordinate fear of guns and the people that carry them. I kind of like the way things are here in Arizona. We always allowed open carry without a permit. Why would concealed carry be any different? I am a firm believer in "Constitutional Carry" once the government bureaucracy gets involved it is often used to deny people their 2nd Amendment rights. Implementing hurdles and excessive costs that are designed to discourage firearms ownership. Which is typical in states that have the most restrictive laws. Some states require the guns to be registered and listed on the permit. The permittee is only allowed to possess those which are on the permit. This could lead to the possible confiscation of those guns. Such as what has happened in New York with the passage of the "Safe Act" which now outlaws magazines that hold over 10 rounds. People with legally registered handguns that came standard with magazines that exceed that capacity could now be subject to criminal prosecution. In Arizona a permittee is not required to register their guns, the government has no idea whether you have one gun or a hundred or what type. People such as myself have permits for reciprocity purposes with other states. Only because those states require their residents to have a permit. If all states went "Constitutional Carry" there would be no need for a permit anywhere which is how it should be. The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, not a privilege.


Well said! :smt1099


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

desertman said:


> RK3369:
> 
> I went through that in trucking school. The main difference in driving tractor trailers and motor homes is maintaining engine control and stopping, both go hand in hand. However you do need a special license to drive a bus which is similar to a Class A motor home. A license to drive a bus does not allow you to drive a tractor trailer nor does a license to drive a tractor trailer allow you to drive a bus. At least it didn't when I went to school.
> 
> I also took tactical handgun courses and a course that was required to get a concealed weapons permit in Arizona. That being said Arizona is a "Constitutional Carry" state where no permit is required to carry open or concealed. Have there been firearms accidents? Of course, just as there have been vehicle accidents, probably no more than in states that require a permit. More people drown in swimming pools than by accidental deaths by firearms. All of the "blood in the streets" arguments that were made prior to Arizona enacting "Constitutional Carry" never happened. Maybe it's because we have always been a gun friendly state and children were taught at an early age to respect firearms. Not so in states that are hostile to the 2nd Amendment. So it's not surprising that residents of those states have an inordinate fear of guns and the people that carry them. I kind of like the way things are here in Arizona. We always allowed open carry without a permit. Why would concealed carry be any different? I am a firm believer in "Constitutional Carry" once the government bureaucracy gets involved it is often used to deny people their 2nd Amendment rights. Implementing hurdles and excessive costs that are designed to discourage firearms ownership. Which is typical in states that have the most restrictive laws. Some states require the guns to be registered and listed on the permit. The permittee is only allowed to possess those which are on the permit. This could lead to the possible confiscation of those guns. Such as what has happened in New York with the passage of the "Safe Act" which now outlaws magazines that hold over 10 rounds. People with legally registered handguns that came standard with magazines that exceed that capacity could now be subject to criminal prosecution. In Arizona a permittee is not required to register their guns, the government has no idea whether you have one gun or a hundred or what type. People such as myself have permits for reciprocity purposes with other states. Only because those states require their residents to have a permit. If all states went "Constitutional Carry" there would be no need for a permit anywhere which is how it should be. The 2nd Amendment is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, not a privilege.


And we all know the only reasons the government wants to regulate it is to make money and to be able to control you.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> And we all know the only reasons the government wants to regulate it is to make money and to be able to control you.


not arguing with any of that. But answer this: are you safer on the road with someone driving a Class A 40 foot motor home that has had some experience and practice driving such a rig, or are you safer with someone who has never driven that rig and is just given the keys and told to go to Florida?

What does your intuition tell you?

and yes, right now, it's that person's legal "right" to drive that 40 footer on any road in this country unless he or she does it for hire. If they are commercial, they need a special license, and a road test to demonstrate their competency.

so lets' say you're on I95 heading South in North Carolina and encounter freezing rain, and look in your rear view mirror and behind you coming hell bent for leather is a guy driving a 40 foot Winnebago. How do you feel? Willing to assume he's been through those conditions in that 30,000 lb rig in the past, or maybe you assume he just picked it up in Jersey and is heading for a winter break in Ft. Lauderdale.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> not arguing with any of that. But answer this: are you safer on the road with someone driving a Class A 40 foot motor home that has had some experience and practice driving such a rig, or are you safer with someone who has never driven that rig and is just given the keys and told to go to Florida?
> 
> What does your intuition tell you?
> 
> ...


I'm no safer on the road under those circumstances than I am at any other time. I'm also in no more danger with them being not being "licensed" to drive. Are you safer on the streets with all manner of fools carrying guns, although they have had training and a permit to do so? I think we both know the answer to that.

There are some people who have been trained to drive, and have passed tests to be licensed to do so who I would no more ride with than a toddler. Just the same, there are some who have had weapons training, and are legally licensed to carry that I will not hang around b/c I think they are loose cannons, liable to do anything with a gun I do not want to be associated with.

What is the point of it all? I'll say it again, no measure of government controls will ensure safety. It is just a fact of life.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

desertman said:


> RK3369:
> 
> I went through that in trucking school. The main difference in driving tractor trailers and motor homes is maintaining engine control and stopping, both go hand in hand. However you do need a special license to drive a bus which is similar to a Class A motor home. A license to drive a bus does not allow you to drive a tractor trailer nor does a license to drive a tractor trailer allow you to drive a bus. At least it didn't when I went to school.
> 
> .


so what is that saying? That the state "demands" some proof that someone who is carrying 50 kids on a school bus is competent to run such a vehicle, maybe? And why would we want to know that? Maybe in the interest of general public safety. But the next guy with a regular auto license can drive a basically equivalent 40 foot Winnebago with no experience or training, and with nobody "testing" him to make sure he has that training or experience, but he can drive down the road and T bone that school bus and kill all those 50 kids anyhow, and that's ok?

Look, I'm not arguing about whether or not we have the right to own and carry arms, all I'm saying is that some level of basic training and competency would be good for everybody to show they have. Take it for what it's worth, and I'm sure to some , it's not worth anything. I've said my piece, I'm out.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> <snip basic common sense>
> 
> Look, I'm not arguing about whether or not we have the right to own and carry arms, all I'm saying is that some level of basic training and competency would be good for everybody to show they have.


A-fcuking-Men!


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> so what is that saying? That the state "demands" some proof that someone who is carrying 50 kids on a school bus is competent to run such a vehicle, maybe? And why would we want to know that? Maybe in the interest of general public safety. But the next guy with a regular auto license can drive a basically equivalent 40 foot Winnebago with no experience or training, and with nobody "testing" him to make sure he has that training or experience, but he can drive down the road and T bone that school bus and kill all those 50 kids anyhow, and that's ok?
> 
> Look, I'm not arguing about whether or not we have the right to own and carry arms, all I'm saying is that some level of basic training and competency would be good for everybody to show they have. Take it for what it's worth, and I'm sure to some , it's not worth anything. I've said my piece, I'm out.


I think it would be good to have, but not to show others you have it. What do you propose, that we show the gestapo our papers before they let us pass with our weapon? Again, we're not talking about training and competence here. It is a matter of government control over it. They are to have NO say whatsoever! Let them in, and well you see where we are.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I mean, why would we need to show we are trained and competent? If one of us makes a mistake, the certification does us no good to show anyone. It hasn't stopped us from making the mistake. It has essentially done nothing but cost us time and money while making us and those around us no safer. 

On the other hand, there are some who are not licensed to drive a car who are better drivers than some who are. Let's get back to the point of the OP. Constitutional carry means we have the right to carry a gun, concealed or openly, regardless of what the government says about it, state or federal. It is a right that shall not be infrigned regardless of training, competence or license.

While training is preferred, it should not be mandated by any government agency, period. The fact that the government is not trying to mandate it instead of confiscating guns tells you their agenda. CONTROL, not SAFETY.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

I think gun safety training and a test should be mandatory for any school kid.
Saying that I know that today many learn how to repeat some kind of knowledge without having a single idea what the heck they talking about. The Colleges producing every year people that earned their degree by simple being able to repeat something that they have not more understanding about than an average fruit fly.

I say weapon safety training, thought free of political ideology, in case they can still do that what I doubt. But honestly thinking that for example the mom in Walmart, with her totally uncontrollable kids has access to a loaded gun, without any questions ask, gives me the creeps. You guys do that while I am abroad on vacation and when I come back after 4-5 weeks there are not only many homes and apartments vacant, entire villages will be depopulated.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

SailDesign said:


> Honestly, though - there should be a mandatory training period. The thought of some of the world's idiots waking around with guns and NO training scares the crap out of me.
> 
> Some of the idiots WITH training do things that scare the crap out of me....


Mandatory training Starting at age 18 for 3 years starting with boot camp cira 1967 standards yea I could go for that good idea SailDesign.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm a wee bit torn between required training and no training what-so-ever. 

I believe that good points could be made on each side of the issue. 

Since I have no control over the matter, I ain't going to worry about it.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

tony pasley said:


> Mandatory training Starting at age 18 for 3 years starting with boot camp cira 1967 standards yea I could go for that good idea SailDesign.


Some of the idiots out there probably need more than 3 years....


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> What is the point of it all? I'll say it again, no measure of government controls will ensure safety. It is just a fact of life.


You are absolutely correct. There are many common objects and practices that people can injure themselves and others with. The use of alcohol or drugs, power equipment, household chemicals and cleaners, prescription and non prescription drugs, pools, automotive tools, safety stands, jacks, ladders, sports equipment, recreational equipment, the distraction of using cell phones and texting even while crossing the street etc. If the our main interest is in preventing accidents we may as well regulate and require a license along with proof of competency of any and all objects that could injure, kill, or maim not only yourself but others along with any and all activity that could cause death or serious bodily harm. Is this the type of society that we want to live in? Why single out firearms? Accidental deaths or injuries with firearms are very low especially when taken into consideration the 10's of millions of them that are already in private hands and the percentage of those that are involved in accidents. If firearms accidents are that prevalent you can be damn sure that the media which has an anti gun agenda wouldn't hesitate in sensationalizing each and every one.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:
We shouldn't be even comparing operating motor vehicles and the lawful carrying of firearms on one's person while going about their daily business. There are far more chances of an individual getting into a motor vehicle accident than from a firearm going off while it is being carried in public. Obviously while driving there are a lot of others that are on the road doing the same thing many are not doing it in a safe manner. How many times can you count that you've been cut off, tailgated, have another vehicle swerve into your lane, have someone run a red light, pull out in front of you from a parking space or intersection, almost run over you in a parking lot, or any number of other things while driving? Now compare that with how many close calls you've had by someone lawfully carrying a gun. Besides driving is a privilege and not a right. Because of that government has every legal right to regulate and require a license for driving. But in spite of licensing and testing people still have an awful lot of motor vehicle accidents.

I was not trying to argue that people who drive a Class A motorhome shouldn't have to have a license for that type of vehicle. Motorcyclists have to have a separate license to operate one. More than likely they will injure or kill themselves in a collision with another motor vehicle. A Class A motorhome involved in an accident could more than likely because of it's size kill a lot more people. Commercial vehicles, in particular tractor trailers and 10 wheel dump trucks require a considerably higher level of skill to drive because of their weight and size. Most of the time in order to stop you must down shift quickly before applying the air brakes. If the driver relies on the air brakes too often you will lose air pressure causing the brakes to either lock up or overheat. It takes quite a bit of practice downshifting as you have to match the RPM's with the speed you're traveling along with double clutching. Miss a gear and you're "free wheeling" a dangerous situation indeed especially with a fully loaded trailer heading down hill. Owners and drivers of motorhomes do not have to deal with this as they are equipped with automatic transmissions making them a lot easier to drive. I don't believe that their owners should have to obtain a CDL for this. But should have to prove their competency in operating such a large vehicle. Most of the people who own these vehicles are also elderly which poses it's own set of problems.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

tony pasley said:


> Mandatory training Starting at age 18 for 3 years starting with boot camp cira 1967 standards yea I could go for that good idea SailDesign.


Be sure to have your papers ready for the gestapo after the training.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

desertman said:


> RK3369:
> We shouldn't be even comparing operating motor vehicles and the lawful carrying of firearms on one's person while going about their daily business. There are far more chances of an individual getting into a motor vehicle accident than from a firearm going off while it is being carried in public. Obviously while driving there are a lot of others that are on the road doing the same thing many are not doing it in a safe manner. How many times can you count that you've been cut off, tailgated, have another vehicle swerve into your lane, have someone run a red light, pull out in front of you from a parking space or intersection, almost run over you in a parking lot, or any number of other things while driving? Now compare that with how many close calls you've had by someone lawfully carrying a gun. Besides driving is a privilege and not a right. Because of that government has every legal right to regulate and require a license for driving. But in spite of licensing and testing people still have an awful lot of motor vehicle accidents.
> 
> I was not trying to argue that people who drive a Class A motorhome shouldn't have to have a license for that type of vehicle. Motorcyclists have to have a separate license to operate one. More than likely they will injure or kill themselves in a collision with another motor vehicle. A Class A motorhome involved in an accident could more than likely because of it's size kill a lot more people. Commercial vehicles, in particular tractor trailers and 10 wheel dump trucks require a considerably higher level of skill to drive because of their weight and size. Most of the time in order to stop you must down shift quickly before applying the air brakes. If the driver relies on the air brakes too often you will lose air pressure causing the brakes to either lock up or overheat. It takes quite a bit of practice downshifting as you have to match the RPM's with the speed you're traveling along with double clutching. Miss a gear and you're "free wheeling" a dangerous situation indeed especially with a fully loaded trailer heading down hill. Owners and drivers of motorhomes do not have to deal with this as they are equipped with automatic transmissions making them a lot easier to drive. I don't believe that their owners should have to obtain a CDL for this. But should have to prove their competency in operating such a large vehicle. Most of the people who own these vehicles are also elderly which poses it's own set of problems.


To be fair to RK, Saildesign drew that comparison to begin with, which I pointed out at the time the logic is lacking.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

desertman said:


> GCBHM:
> 
> You are absolutely correct. There are many common objects and practices that people can injure themselves and others with. The use of alcohol or drugs, power equipment, household chemicals and cleaners, prescription and non prescription drugs, pools, automotive tools, safety stands, jacks, ladders, sports equipment, recreational equipment, the distraction of using cell phones and texting even while crossing the street etc. If the our main interest is in preventing accidents we may as well regulate and require a license along with proof of competency of any and all objects that could injure, kill, or maim not only yourself but others along with any and all activity that could cause death or serious bodily harm. Is this the type of society that we want to live in? Why single out firearms? Accidental deaths or injuries with firearms are very low especially when taken into consideration the 10's of millions of them that are already in private hands and the percentage of those that are involved in accidents. If firearms accidents are that prevalent you can be damn sure that the media which has an anti gun agenda wouldn't hesitate in sensationalizing each and every one.


We seem to think an awful lot alike on a lot of issues, dm.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> We seem to think an awful lot alike on a lot of issues, dm.


We sure do my friend, we sure do. I'm surprised that a lot of these control freaks don't spend most of their time railing against the use of alcohol or cigarettes which kill far more people than firearms do. Oh, that's right they already tried that, it was called "prohibition". Worked great now didn't it? When you come right down to it I'll bet that alcohol abuse is probably the root cause of most of society's problems, family break ups, spousal and child abuse, DWI's, suicides, murders of passion, arguments, you name it. Alcohol or drugs are the fuel. Maybe we should require that anyone that purchases any type of alcoholic beverage have a license to do so and receive the proper training in responsible alcohol consumption. Every alcoholic beverage must be registered and limited to one alcoholic beverage a month. What say you? I also do not see these same people railing against bars whose only real purpose is for people to drive to, get inebriated and then drive home. Instead they're just terrified that some law abiding citizen is walking around with a sidearm. You just can't keep passing laws to alleviate everyone's perceived fears. "SailDesign" might end up getting hit in the ass by his own jib and knocked overboard. Do we ban or regulate jibs?

I really have no problem with people becoming educated in the proper handling of firearms. I believe that it along with many other things including drug, alcohol and the dangers of tobacco products should be taught at a young age in school and continuously throughout their school years. Christ, they waste enough time and money on subjects that have no real practical purpose in life. Instead of passing more and more laws and regulations that in the long run will wipe out every single freedom that we have.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Agreed. As I see it, the more choices that are taken away from us, the worse off we are. It is just insane to me how intelligent people actually believe that you can make society safer by passing laws restricting people. I mean, if laws that restrict people worked, then why do we have a problem with over crowded prisons? 

I believe education should be offered as early as grade school, followed by actual training beginning as early as jr high evolving into HS and college. Basic knowledge and safety taught along with the arts, and then more advanced training offered as electives. There is actually a very specific science to firearms called ballistics that could become very lucrative careers for people, and if they were introduced to the concepts at early ages, they may be able to develop ideas and test theories sooner, etc. I mean there are literally all kinds of positives that could stem from such a cirriculum. Why isn't the government mandating this as they have driver's education? 

Could it be that their agenda really isn't to protect society, but to control it? Hmmm...car control, alcohol control, drug control, health care control...gun control...yes, I do believe their agenda is to control. It always has been, and it always will be. And I'll say it again, no measure of government control will ever make society safer. It never has, and it never will.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> Could it be that their agenda really isn't to protect society, but to control it?


You've got it!


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Elitist bastards. (In my best English accent)


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

desertman said:


> RK3369:
> . A Class A motorhome involved in an accident could more than likely because of it's size kill a lot more people. Commercial vehicles, in particular tractor trailers and 10 wheel dump trucks require a considerably higher level of skill to drive because of their weight and size. Most of the time in order to stop you must down shift quickly before applying the air brakes. If the driver relies on the air brakes too often you will lose air pressure causing the brakes to either lock up or overheat. It takes quite a bit of practice downshifting as you have to match the RPM's with the speed you're traveling along with double clutching. Miss a gear and you're "free wheeling" a dangerous situation indeed especially with a fully loaded trailer heading down hill. Owners and drivers of motorhomes do not have to deal with this as they are equipped with automatic transmissions making them a lot easier to drive. I don't believe that their owners should have to obtain a CDL for this. But should have to prove their competency in operating such a large vehicle. Most of the people who own these vehicles are also elderly which poses it's own set of problems.


Back when I was first out of high school, I had a Class B license which was straight truck over 26000 GVW. Drove for a living for a couple years, also ran a road sander/dumptruck for two winters for the local highway dept during the winter months. You can't honestly believe that just anybody with no training should be able to take off down the road with a Class A, can you? I don't care if it's an automatic, or an 18 spd road ranger, it's just not the same as driving a car. You know that it's not the same thing and to just give the keys to somebody and say have a nice day is foolish. Same thing with gun training, imo. How can anyone argue that even the smallest amount of safety training does not make you, and society in general, safer? If training doesn't work, why are we still doing driver ed classes in the schools? Why do insurance companies give young drivers a discount if they go through driver training? It's been proven through statistics that safety training is a positive influence and lowers the overall level of risk of an unsafe outcome.

What you guys are arguing against is "government mandated training". I don't want to see more government mandates either. I think you are arguing against a basic scientific fact that training reduces risk, but you are objecting to that fact because you don't want the government to tell you "you have to do it." I don't want them to tell me I have to do it either, but they tell us under the guise of increasing the "overall safety of the general public". Call it what you will, while I don't want to see more mandates either, you can not argue with the fact that safety training reduces risk. The point I'm trying to make is separate from the issue of whether the government should be able to tell you that you must be trained in safe operation.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> Back when I was first out of high school, I had a Class B license which was straight truck over 26000 GVW. Drove for a living for a couple years, also ran a road sander/dumptruck for two winters for the local highway dept during the winter months. You can't honestly believe that just anybody with no training should be able to take off down the road with a Class A, can you? I don't care if it's an automatic, or an 18 spd road ranger, it's just not the same as driving a car. You know that it's not the same thing and to just give the keys to somebody and say have a nice day is foolish. Same thing with gun training, imo. How can anyone argue that even the smallest amount of safety training does not make you, and society in general, safer? If training doesn't work, why are we still doing driver ed classes in the schools? Why do insurance companies give young drivers a discount if they go through driver training? It's been proven through statistics that safety training is a positive influence and lowers the overall level of risk of an unsafe outcome.
> 
> What you guys are arguing against is "government mandated training". I don't want to see more government mandates either. I think you are arguing against a basic scientific fact that training reduces risk, but you are objecting to that fact because you don't want the government to tell you "you have to do it." I don't want them to tell me I have to do it either, but they tell us under the guise of increasing the "overall safety of the general public". Call it what you will, while I don't want to see more mandates either, you can not argue with the fact that safety training reduces risk. The point I'm trying to make is separate from the issue of whether the government should be able to tell you that you must be trained in safe operation.


No, no one is arguing that training does not reduce risk. I think we have argued that training is good, but training alone, especially when mandated by government, is not going to reduce anything. I lived in TN for seven years, and in order to obtain a state conceal carry permit you must complete a 40 hour training course, undergo a background investigation, and pay a lot of money.

Would you be surprised to know that does little to reduce violent crime committed with guns? Would you also be surprised to know that the majority of that gun related violent crime is committed by people who did not submit to those requirements, but still somehow carried guns? While training may reduce risk, it does not ensure safety. It is absolute nonsense to have government mandated training to be able to carry guns. Like all other gun control measures (and that is what it is), it simply does not work.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> No, no one is arguing that training does not reduce risk. I think we have argued that training is good, but training alone, especially when mandated by government, is not going to reduce anything. I lived in TN for seven years, and in order to obtain a state conceal carry permit you must complete a 40 hour training course, undergo a background investigation, and pay a lot of money.
> 
> Would you be surprised to know that does little to reduce violent crime committed with guns?
> 
> ...


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> GCBHM said:
> 
> 
> > No, no one is arguing that training does not reduce risk. I think we have argued that training is good, but training alone, especially when mandated by government, is not going to reduce anything. I lived in TN for seven years, and in order to obtain a state conceal carry permit you must complete a 40 hour training course, undergo a background investigation, and pay a lot of money.
> ...


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> RK3369 said:
> 
> 
> > GCBHM said:
> ...


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> GCBHM said:
> 
> 
> > RK3369 said:
> ...


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

RK3369:


> You can't honestly believe that just anybody with no training should be able to take off down the road with a Class A, can you?


Here's what I said:


> I don't believe that their owners should have to obtain a CDL for this. *But should have to prove their competency in operating such a large vehicle.*


I hope that answers that question. However driving and carrying a gun for personal protection are two different things. From my earlier post:


> How many times can you count that you've been cut off, tailgated, have another vehicle swerve into your lane, have someone run a red light, pull out in front of you from a parking space or intersection, almost run over you in a parking lot, or any number of other things while driving? Now compare that with how many close calls you've had by someone lawfully carrying a gun. Besides driving is a privilege and not a right. *Because of that government has every legal right to regulate and require a license for driving.* But in spite of licensing and testing people still have an awful lot of motor vehicle accidents.


As far as mandating government required training and permits to carry a gun, it opens up a whole system of abuse by politicians who wish to control people's lives. I do not trust nor worship at the alter of any politician either Republican or Democrat. Many will jump at the chance to make it as difficult as possible to obtain a concealed weapons permit. All in the name of public safety. Who gets to determine how much training is adequate and at what cost? Chuck Schumer? Diane Fienstein? Carolyn McCarthy? Eric Holder? Barack Obama? Should an individual who wishes to carry for their own personal protection require the same training as a member of a swat team or SEAL Team 6? People will just give it up by government fiat. That's their real intent. Sure you can exercise your 2nd Amendment rights as long as you meet certain conditions or if you are politically well connected. The right then becomes a privilege granted by government. What government giveth, government can taketh. Eventually government will indeed taketh. Just look at all of the gun control laws that have been passed since the gun control act of 1968? Have things really gotten better? Are we any safer? Hell, back then you never heard of any school shootings. That law was passed to protect the sorry asses of politicians following the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobbie Kennedy.

I feel that the education about safely handling firearms should be taught in public and private schools. And that's all it should be about safely handling firearms, free from any and all political agendas. Children that are brought up around firearms are less likely to abuse them or be involved in firearms related accidents. Since there are 10's of millions of firearms in circulation why firearms safety is not taught in schools is beyond me. Political correctness run amok.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

> Our government has the role of trying to determine how and to what extent to regulate our lives.


Statements like that scare the hell out of me. I guess that would depend on who is in charge of government. Suppose another Hitler or Stalin got elected what then?


----------

