“You have to show me you’re proficient if I’m going to let you carry those weapons. … I believe most educated common-sense gun owners feel the same way, too. There’s a lot of us out there. But they don’t have that voice.” – Thomas Yoxall in He’s a good guy with a gun who saved a cop’s life — and he’s for gun control [via usatoday.com]
He’s also a convicted felon. He got his rights back. But “common sense” would say to never give people their rights back. Is he for others getting their rights back?
Speaking of which, is Congress ever going to do anything about making it feasible to get your rights back?
Considering the story about Sessions not wanting SCOTUS to take up the case from the Pennsylvania residents from the Daily Digest last night, I’m thinking those rights are gone for the foreseeable future.
GoA is pushing to remove the prohibition on federal funding for that. Call your congressman and senators.
So what. Like I said in a different comment, the no gun if felon laws are just feel good measures. No, I don’t think criminals, convicted or otherwise, should have guns. But if they want one, no law is going to stop them. Oh, that’s right…I forgot, criminals don’t obey laws.
And something else to think about: all the stupid laws we have on the books. When discussing this subject, there are plenty of murder, rapist, armed robbers, etc. to reference. But what if you are convicted of some stupid ATF rule or anti-gun state law (like say having one of those dangerous over limit pistol magazines). You are than a “convicted felon” and subject to these laws.
It’s not hard to point and shoot. It’s the pressure of the situation that messes with you. I doubt this guy pays to go to classes where some other bearded tattooed guy screams at him and then does the tactical tyrannosaurus dance with an RMR’d Glock 26.
Actually he did. According to the article he took numerous classes, including ones wearing a plate carrier, and then continued to practice tactical drills on his own.
And, for all that, these combined experiences didn’t give him much insight into the fundamental issue surrounding gun ownership. I’m speaking of the US Constitution, of course. We don’t have “common sense” control of 1st amendment right because freedom of expression is sacred (or at least should be . . .). The 2nd amendment is also sacred and in exactly the same way. Start limiting the expression of one right and you open the door to limiting the expression of all rights.
“It’s not hard to point and shoot”
When was the last time you were at an public indoor range. How may floor and wall strikes did you see.
Meh. No worse accuracy than the ohh soo highly trained police and their approx. 15% to 30% hit percentage on suspects. What was it in San Bernardino? 10% or so?
I think the 15-30% hit rate is on bystanders, the rate for perps/jihadis/young men turning their lives around is way less than 10%.
The Cleveland Gray’s Armory has a range in the basement. There were bullet holds everywhere EXCEPT at the far end of the range..
Then they stopped making the facility available to the Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority Police.
[Unexpectedly] bullet holes stopped appearing in the walls, floors, ceilings, and BEHIND the firing line.
Who knew?
Cleveland Metropolitan Housing Authority Police. I think I know where the they don’t put the best cops. FYI we had some white collar crime FBI guys at an IDPA match, and I think there is a reason they are not busting down doors.
And what was learned by those shooters who shot the walls, ceiling, and floor?
We don’t need mandates attached to the second amendment.
“Life…finds a way”
Dr. Ian Malcolm
You have to show me that you are thinking correctly if you want me to keep you out of the reeducation camps. Any correctly thinking citizen agrees with me. See how that works?
Great response, The armed intelligentsia are frauds who like progressives have all the answers.
This guy is total bullshit. Ive read multiple different stories from his own mouth about how he caught his felony charge. And who the hell is he to say if we are proficient enough to use a gun. Go back to taking pictures. Oh yea, capatilizing on ur 15 min of fame. Named his business “sure shot”. Ridiculous.
Nothing screams “I make bad choices” like neck tats, and a criminal history.
….and the trend continues.
They guy does have that “I want to turn minimum wage into a career” look, doesn’t he?
Ratty beard? Check
Stupid tats? Check
He’s one disgusting set of dreads away from hitting the meth head lottery.
The beard is one of the few remnants of “toxic masculinity” the poor 20-somethings are allowed by their PC overlords.
There are few acceptable remaining differentiators for boys from the girls anymore, hell, they’ve got half the young boys speaking like they’re hanging out in Elton John’s dressing room. Not to mention, the oppression Olympics, and one’s need to participate.
Cut the hipster some slack. Not too much mind you, because he looks dorky, but it’s what’s acceptable in his InstaFaceTwit world.
He did good that day, but looking at him and his life, he’s not somebody we should be taking advice from, so I can easily ignore his comments.
As an educated, common sense gun owner … Speak for yourself, jacka$s. Don’t you dare to presume to speak for me.
Speech has harmed far more people, over far longer stretches of time, than guns ever have or likely will. In spite of the inherent danger, I support both the right to free speech – including yours – and the right to keep and bear arms as being worth the benefits they bring to an engaged free populace.
“You have to show me you’re proficient if I’m going to let you carry those weapons. …”
Who the hell is he to determine if I am “proficient” enough to meet a standard. I read the whole article, how it describes a man who overcame the trials of his youth; felony, bi-polar disease, etc., and who eventually got his gun rights back. SO let me get this straight, this damaged person is the arbiter of the Bill of Rights? Go eff yourself.
What if someone handles better than he does? Maybe he shouldn’t be carrying.
This was my point as well. F this guy.
I have had a chl in 3 different states, 1 just gave it to me after running a background check and taking my money. 2 required the above plus a 6 hour class on gun laws. The 3rd from the great state of Texas required all of the above plus a basic proficiency test, which while basic actually resulted in 1 bolo and 1 failure to qualify ( pocket 380s are hard to shoot) in my class. I think I am for uninhibited gun ownership but won’t lie I enjoy knowing that atleast in Texas other chl holders can actually shoot. I know the arguments of permitting rights and so on, does the belief in any type of additional requirements for a Chl make someone a FUD?(btw is that an acronym or a reference to a looney tune character?)
Pocket 380s are not hard to shoot. If you find them hard to shoot, why are you qualifying with one, much less carrying one.
To clarify I did not bolo or fail to qualify other people in my class did. And I personally would not conceal carry a gun I couldn’t shoot well enough to meet the state of Texas’ basic profiency test. A pocket 380 can be difficult for new shooters to master.
I went in for the Illinois CCL qualification even before the licences were issued. So the people in the class wold be more “gun people” then most. I think half the people never drew from a holster before, we did holster draws in class. At the qualification 3 guns out of 20 were malfunctioning, 1 or 2 people did not qualify (I could easily pass it shooting from the hip and had to string my shots so that we had the necessary number of holes). No none had “small guns”, my CW9 was the smallest gun in the class. The range session was king of scary.
You guys ever shot a Mustang??
Fun and accurate for me.
Actually, almost all pocket .380’s ARE hard to shoot, or, at least, significantly HARDER to shoot than a full size handgun, or even a small, single stack 9mm. They are lightweight (harsher recoil), thin and short (difficult to hang onto), and have long, heavy, shitty triggers. Aside from .357 snubbies and large caliber hunting revolvers, they’re probably the HARDEST handguns to shoot well.
The are not harder to shoot, they are just scarier, harder to recover for the followup shot and maybe more painful. As for trigger pull, that as nothing to do with the fact that they are 380s.
How do “scarier, harder to recover for the followup shot and maybe more painful” not translate to “harder to shoot”?
Well, maybe he only means to shoot once. I guess if you get a head shot the first time, you don’t need to shoot again?
Joe in San Antonio,
See my response below to George in RI why arbitrary handgun proficiency standards have no utility whatsoever. And even if there were some utility, it would not matter because rights are not subject to utility.
As for the label “Fudd”, it is not an acronym. It specifically refers to a person who claims that we only have a privilege to own hunting firearms for hunting purposes which the Almighty State can control any way it sees fit. In the more general sense, the label refers to a person who agrees that the Almighty State defines the extent of a privilege (if any) that we have to own and possess firearms. And yes, either use points toward the cartoon character Elmer Fudd.
Uncommon, So I complete agree with as far as the second amendment pertains as a last recourse against an oppressive state. Just recently has the right been interpreted to apply in all jurisdictions for the defense of self (which I totally agree with as well). However there has also been a long history of states or municipalities restricting carry or concealed carry. I guess my question is, is there any room for regulation? I appreciate your opinion and also the clarification of the term.
“is there any room for regulation?”
Absolutely! The addition of several lines in 2A, by the amendment process, could delineate whatever “regulation” the American people believed appropriate. Thus far, however, there have been none even attempted. All we get is bureaucrats and tyrant wannabes wanting to use the power of the government to enforce their own personal wishes, without referencing the wishes of the rest of America.
Can actually shoot? Seriously? A CHL, now LTC, class proficiency test consists of firing 50 rounds total at distances of 3, 7, and 15 yards, to obtain a score of 70%. I’ve seen people pass that test whose first time firing a handgun was right then.
That test isn’t proof of anything. All that proficiency testing for firearms does is give the government another means of limiting people’s exercise of their rights, while providing false confidence to busybody others.
Really, we demand proficiency and licenses to drive, too. Everyone schleps themselves down to the DPS or DMV or wherever and dutifully pretends to be a good driver for ten minutes:
Seatbelts get fastened. Mirrors get adjusted and obsessively checked. Hands are death grip tight at ten and two. They drive a pleasant five mph below the speed limit and gently glide to stops at red lights and stop signs. Blinkers? Are you kidding me? Folks are blinkering like their lives depended on it.
Once they get that license, they peel out of the parking lot and hit the road: burger in one hand, cell phone in the other, wheel between their knees, and radio blaring as they speed and swerve down the freeway.
And you’re in the next lane over, with your family, feeling all comfy, cozy, and safe, because you know that the other guy has a license evincing his proficiency to drive? Good grief.
Now, I’m not saying that having firearm or vehicle proficiency is not good thing. It’s a great thing. I’m just saying that some goofy government licence doesn’t provide it.
Exactly.
+1
You asked Joe. Yes, it not only makes you a FUDD, it makes you the handmaiden of and the servant to every mass murdering psychopath that has lead the “useful idiots” in government instigated democide.
Having any restriction before being able to practice a right is unacceptable. The fact that so many states do have such restrictions is an indication of the sickness of people needing control over other’s. The fact that there is now 14 states with constitutional carry with no need of proof of prior proficiency in practicing this right is a sign of hope that at least some majorities of people in certain places do understand this basic truth.
And guess what, though there is no need of proving that people won’t misuse this right without government regulation, there has been no “blood in the streets” after CC was passed in these states.
What a concept, the masses can be trusted to use such a freedom wisely, without government control.
So is your argument that the constitution is infallible, the notion of democracy hasn’t changed(democratic republic)? We put limits on the 2a itself(last I checked no full auto, bombs ect) I think it’s good to be able to discuss. As citizens of this great country it’s our job to steer the rudder so the next generation inherits what we have.
Is it so bad to have to show you can hit the broad side of a barn before being allowed to carry a weapon in the public domain? Not talking about simply owning one, but as a precursor to a carry permit. And I am talking about simple proficiency here, not some arbitrary high bar set by those who would use it as a control mechanism. RI is far from a model for 2A rights, but the one part of the carry permit app that I thought wasn’t such a bad idea was proving the ability to score a 195 on an Army L target at 25 yds in whatever the largest caliber you want to carry is. 30min, so time is not a factor. Can be scored by NRA cert instructor or local PD, your choice. If this was the only trade-off for a national carry permit, would it be kosher? Me says yes.
So an elderly woman, who can’t see 25 yards with acute vision, but can see the mugger or car jacker who’s right in front of her shouldn’t be allowed to defend herself?
Use whatever minimum accuracy standard you want, I only included the goofy RI version. 7 yards, whatever. The point is, many folks are terrible at shooting and require more practice than others to achieve even a very low proficiency. If self-defense range of the scenario you cherry-picked is short, then make that the standard.
I think you’re having a hard time with the concept of a “right”. Hint: it is unconstitutional to place qualifiers on the exercise of a right.
most cops wouldn’t pass.
“Use whatever minimum accuracy standard you want”
Don’t worry, they will, just like they place whatever minimum “need” requirement they want, as well. How many carry licenses has R.I. issued, by the way?
This is not about safety. It’s about control of people, perpetuation of the victim mentality, and dependence on government.
Common sense, good intentions, public safety…..none of that is relevant and all of that is a smokescreen. The government relies on such appeals to well meaning people just to gain their confidence. That’s where the con in “con job” comes from. Licensing of rights is a huge con job. They just want to separate you from your guns and get you to think that’s a good, right, and proper idea.
But hey, if it’s so great an idea, then let’s expand it! Let’s bring back poll taxes and literacy tests as prerequisites to vote! The government can use whatever minimum literacy standard you want, right? I propose Old English. Better brush up on your Beowulf; we’re coming up on an election year.
“So an elderly woman, who can’t see 25 yards with acute vision, but can see the mugger or car jacker who’s right in front of her shouldn’t be allowed to defend herself?”
JWT – A serious question for you –
Do you *not* think anyone carrying for self-defense shouldn’t be aware of a few basic things, like why a semi-auto is not ’empty’ when you remove the magazine and the importance of keeping one’s finger off the trigger until ready to shoot? (4 rules)
A lot of solid knowledge on stuff like that can be learned in under one hour. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable thing to learn before granny or *anyone* starts carrying for self-defense.
If you are so adamant that “A right needs no qualifications” would you be against mandatory firearm safety being taught in school?
In my book, that would fulfill the training requirement.
Flame away –
duh… forgot to say score 195 in 30 total rounds in 30min. Not hard, unless you are one of those first-timers who kick up dirt half way between the firing line and the target routinely. THEY ARE OUT THERE. Pistols are not easy to shoot accurately without practice, unlike rifles.
“Pistols are not easy to shoot accurately without practice, unlike rifles.
If accuracy means hitting a man-sized target somewhere in the stopping zone at 25 or 50 feet, I guess I witness simply amazing people on a semi-regular basis. Or, it’s pretty easy to shoot a pistol and hit a man-sized target with a few pointers. I’m going with the latter. YMMV
Is it so hard to shout that you are a US citizen with a functional grasp of constitutional authority before you’re allowed to vote on public policy? Just something as simple as a literacy test with a basic constitutional law test and, of course photo ID every time you come to the polls. See the problem yet?
So why bother teaching civics classes in high school. Must be a constitutional violation to do so.
Train the kids in high school. If they can make it a requirement for graduation that you pass a swimming test (some high schools do), they can do the same for safe gun handling and marksmanship.
Um… last time i checked, graduating high school was not a requirement for voting.
AFAIK, They quit civics in public school decades ago. You’re not supposed to know why we founded this place, let alone what the Founders actually believed – it would contradict the current narrative.
Binder,
Schools do not teach Civics any more: they teach Government. If Academia taught Civics, they would have to show the serious problems with our modern implementation … and Academia cannot possibly risk painting their Savior, the Almighty State, in a negative light.
(Hat tip to 16V.)
Here is the thing everyone is missing about training. Training can be flat out required.
Artical1 section 8 Congress shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of TRANING the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Civics/Government classes are senior year requirements. You are free to drop out of high school at sixteen long before that. So there.
@binder
Incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not the militia. Any powers Congress has vis-a-vi the militia are not applicable to the people as a whole.
Sure. Training can be required, but it not a prerequisite to the right of the people to the keeping and the bearing of arms. That is the “shall not be infringed” part of the 2nd amendment.
ThomasR Gets it!!!
Sure, binder, if you were a citizen between 17 and forty five, and you did not show up for your designated militia training with your rifle and field kit, you would be charged a fine, but it was not a prerequisite to own that rifle in the first place. And if you were not part of the organized militia, you weren’t required to show up for training, and you weren’t denied the right to carry any firearm in public.
The problem now adays, is almost all training requirements ARE tied to whether you can keep and bear that firearm in public. That is why these current licensing requirements to KABA in public is unacceptable, and unconstitutional.
Pwrserge, where in the constitution does it say we have the right to carry a gun for personal defense? Last I checked it said something about defense from tyrants. If you say it’s implied or that it’s been interpreted to say that, I would agree. However 200+ yrs of jurisprudence also says that different entities of goverment can restrict it.
Check again. The Second Amendment does not mention tyrants. It indicates that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There is a prefatory clause, but the SC has ruled that that’s exactly that: prefatory. It introduces the subsequent right and provides some context for it, but doesn’t define or delimit the right itself.
Nevertheless, that prefatory clause mentions the purpose being the security of a free state. Security includes personal security, whether against local criminals, federal tyrants, or foreign invaders.
Jonathan exactly my point, the constitution changes by amendments and its meaning is interpeted to apply differently over time.
Joe in San Antonio, the first 10 amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, were passed with the Constitution, and as a prerequisite for passage for many of the signers.
Yep, it’s an infringement and presumes people are stupid and reckless. Bad gun laws are a fact of life but I don’t take crap like that and like it. If it’s just a matter of staying out of RI, happily I can avoid it entirely.
George in RI,
The overwhelming majority of self-defense events, where the defender actually fires a handgun, consists of no more than three shots at no more than three feet … and the event is over in less than three seconds.
On top of that, in the overwhelming majority of ALL self-defense events, defenders never even fire their handgun: the defender merely brandishes or draws/aims without firing.
When you combine these simple FACTS, there is zero utility in requiring that people have some arbitrary level of proficiency at 25 yards.
“consists of no more than three shots at no more than three feet …”
Although I agree with your overall point, there is no evidence to back that statement up. It is purely a training myth based on an FBI report about the distance at which law enforcement officers were killed at.
The number of rounds, time, and distance used during a civilian DGU is data that simply doesn’t exist on any scale that would make up a reasonable representative sample.
Some young publication-hungry assistant professor somewhere really ought to research that. He or she would have to be employed at a truth-oriented university, though, which is a tall order in these subjects. Otherwise such research could cost you your career.
I agree, those figures sound about right, even just based on intuition about how real world DGUs go down. However, intuition is not science. We need credible collection and analysis of the raw data before we can make those claims definitively. I’ve read widely on this subject, but never found anything solid on this specific point, despite how frequently the numbers are thrown out there.
I’m not saying those numbers aren’t true. I’m just saying we don’t really know that for a fact.
Experiences of the students of Tom Givens suggests that the distance for private citizens in DGUs is 3 to 5 yards.
BS. It might seem like it requires exquisitely good judgement to someone with his… perspective. But like not having earthworm-ears it’s pretty intuitive to most people. I’ve nothing to prove to him, nor him to I.
So, i have to show this guy im worthy of the right to bear arms?
Based on his comment he hasnt shown me he is worthy of his right to free speech.
Just saying.
I’m sorry, but who are you to “let” me do anything?
Who sets the standards and judges others?
let the NRA set the standard. someone who won’t be inclined to use it for shady gun-control purposes. The sad reality is some folks are dangerous, and are just as likely to hit someone 90 degrees from where they are aiming. They could do more harm than good, not just to others as they spray rounds ineffectually, but the bad press that comes with it can be devastating to the cause.
Again… you seem to be having a hard time with the concept of a “right”…
And you have a hard time with the idea that when people are educated on the skills and responsibilities required to utilize that right, that same right is afforded far stronger protections than any opinion or piece of paper can ever provide.
And you still don’t get what “right” means. I’d love everyone to have been involved in some forensics in HS. Or at least a logic and reasoning class. It would make most of the discussions of posts so much more interesting.
But, freedom of speech is a right and people are free to exercise it regardless if I “approve” of their level of education, or accent for that matter. It may make the speech “better” or “more interesting”, but that’s not the point. .
Which has jack shit to do with “allowing” people to exercise said right.
The point is to protect that right. Lack of education will lose those rights faster that you can believe. A perfect example is, if you are arrested it is a good idea to say nothing to a cop? If not, what should you say. Ask 100 people and see what you get for an answer. So much for 5th amendment rights.
Nice straw man. What is proposed here is basically requiring people to undergo training to exercise a right at all. Didn’t go to law school? No 5th amendment protections for you.
No, just that people are required to get training period.
reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Well, as soon as Congress decides to do those things, they can. Until which point…
Oh, and not talking to the cops can be used against you at trial. So what were you saying about the 5th?
16V says:
Up until that point, the states get to do it. Kind of sucks…
Wow Binder. You’ve been hitting the barn for all that straw?
1. Whatever powers congress has in regards to the militia are not applicable to the whole body of the people. Note that the 2nd amendment reserves the right for the PEOPLE not the MILITIA.
2. Way to misrepresent the actual rulling and precedent. I happen to know that the case in question had quite a few circumstances beyond what you’re implying.
Pwrserge, I’m not arguing that training is a requirement for you second amendment rights. I am arguing that training can be required period. Just like selective service or what have you. This provides a legal framework for requiring people to be trained to use weapons. That is the whole point second amendment. For people to be armed as a protection for our freedoms. Just having a gun is useless, just like the freedom of speech is fairly useless if people are illiterate.
” Just having a gun is useless, just like the freedom of speech is fairly useless if people are illiterate.”
So, free people can only communicate using the written word? Admittedly, the literacy rate was higher when the country was founded but, once again, free speech is only for print? I do still function IRL, and when I’m with actual people I converse with them.
No , 16V. But it helps.
Pwrserge, still have not replied to the fact that not talking to the cops can be used against you. That education is NOT required to evoke your 5th amendment rights without your silence being used against you.
Hey Binder,
Go read the full briefs and decisions in that case. It’s nowhere near as simple as you make it out to be. This is not a constitutional law debate blog, so I’m just going to leave it at you grossly misrepresenting the court’s ruling.
If you are talking about not talking to the cops, I know about that one. As to the Militia cases you are commenting on, can you give me a hint.
Ha, the NRA. I’m not a fan but I think they’d be smart enough not to get involved.
Ummm George? This is why it is called the 2nd amendment to the bill of RIGHTS, not the bill of privileges. This is because, historically, those listed in the bill of rights are some of the most commonly restricted freedoms of the people to be licensed, regulated and ultimately outlawed by the powers that be. Especially the right to keep and bear arms.
We are in much greater danger of mass death and tyranny by those that have the power to regulate and license this right, with the power of the government and all it’s implements of enforcement, than those few citizens that might mis-use it.
My concern is twofold. First, I am wary of LOSING that right and if anyone thinks the 2A is not under direct attack every day they are kidding themselves. This is not a right that has no chance of ever going away sadly. Nothing accelerates the loss of 2A, and the great gains in concealed carry laws made, like bad press of CC’ers behaving badly or lacking even basic skills. It gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Second concern is whether you feel comfortable knowing the person in the mall next to your family has absolutely no idea how to safely deploy the firearm in their pocket/purse because they never had to show that they could. Carrying a loaded weapon in the public domain carries great responsibility and it is incumbent on those doing so to make sure they know what they are doing. Unfortunately we don’t have a decent test to filter out the reckless, but we do have pretty simple ways of determining whether someone can hit the broad side of a barn. Folks can keep throwing out the right vs privilege argument, and they would be right i agree, but being right on this intellectual argument is not going to guarantee anything in this political charged climate and minute-by-minute news cycle. part of the problem is that we have been under fire so often that we immediately recoil at something that (were it not 2A related) would likely seem like a good idea.
George, If you want to actually have some proof for your suppositions, some actual science to back your argument, then I would offer that it’s rather straightforward proposition.
Since we have returned to Constitutional carry in a number of states, feel free to gather the stats on negligent discharges in public, random acts of stupidity, and generally irresponsible gun use, adjusting for criminals, numbers of owners, etc.
Regardless, kowtowing to the antis is like trying to appease Muslims – a fool’s errand. The antis want your guns just like the Muslims are required to take over the world. Doesn’t matter what you give them, the end goal is the same.
George and binder, I can see both of your points we are asking for extension/interpretation of a right that hasn’t existed. As a public we need to represent a good image. As far as restrictions we all don’t walk around with nukes so restrictions already apply.
“George and binder, I can see both of your points we are asking for extension/interpretation of a right that hasn’t existed. As a public we need to represent a good image. As far as restrictions we all don’t walk around with nukes so restrictions already apply.”
Sooo much fail.
No, we’re going back to the way it was before we ceded those rights (mainly in the name of racism). I agree we need to present a good image, but WTF does that have to do with the point at hand? The rest is just a logical fallacy.
So George, you say you’re concerned with losing this right, and concerned about the level of proficiency of fellow citizens in the use of those firearms in public.
Sorry George, but you will create the very thing you fear by supporting government mandates for minimum standards to practice this right, which historically has always lead to outright bans. It is because of people like you supporting government “standards” that has come to California’s virtual ban on citizens carrying firearms along the coast and New York’s cities virtual ban except for the rich, the powerful and the police.
And will your “standards” lead to any greater proficiency of the common citizen in using thier weapon in self-defense? Not according to the many years of experience with Constitutional Carry in Vermont, and now many other states having passed CC. Their stats do not show any more “bad behavior” by law abiding citizens in using a firearm in public than in states with state mandated requirements and licensing before getting a permit to carry a firearm in public.
So no George, the only thing that will come from you wanting government control of our rights will be the very thing you say you are concerned about, the loss of those rights, and it will not lead to any greater safety from “bad behavior” by those citizens that will not keep up with the regular practice of their skills, regardless of the initial certification process.
I’ve been waiting for someone to make this point ThomasR. It can’t be stated plainly or emphatically enough:
Freedom, with all its perils, is still preferable to tyranny.
Anyone who doesn’t agree or understand, and there are lots of them, notwithstanding that is what this country was founded on. The idea that it is better to die free than live under tyranny isn’t an abstraction, and it isn’t limited to death by combat with some hypothetical tyrant, it’s the concept that:
If too much liberty finally kills you, you’re still better off.
I’m afraid better than half the country could no longer honestly agree with that statement. Infantilization and an insatiable quest for comfort have replace concepts of being someone of principle who does things, for one’s self and others. The Republic is only mirroring the death of the culture and the end of an educated, determined and principled society. Where we go from here I don’t know, but I don’t think we are going to survive as a nation very much longer, a few more generations until the consuming non producers finally drag the last useful citizen down.
Yo, Joe! Pony up the 3-400 million dollars for a nuke, then we can argue the right to own it. Otherwise, your statement is bullshit.
and what of the arthritic retiree who cant load their own magazines? What of the blind man who would only choose contact shots?
Those who are least capable are by definition the most vulnerable, and you would deny them their rights based on your ableist fantasy of proficiency. That is despicable.
can’t load magazines? get a revolver. contact shots only? really? I am despicable for daring to suggest proficiency with a deadly weapon “may” not be horrible? I don’t know what to say to that. We can disagree I suppose.
Your first and most fundamental mistake is that people must justify their purchases at all, but that is a separate issue.
Double action triggers are heavy. I know people with arthritis who are limited to tip-up semis because of this. Blind men with guns scare you? Look up some of Ayoob’s work on blind people with guns. They’ll surprise you.
Freedom is scary. Liberals vote, and that scares me, but you don’t see me advocating common sense conservatism tests before granting voting rights.
No, you are despicable for setting a qualifier for the exercise of a right. It’s no more morally defensible than a poll tax.
“No True Scotsman” fallacy much there?
Typical Progressive strategy: paint you as stupid, crazy, or corrupt if you do not agree with them … facts be damned. In this case Thomas Yoxall gets a two-for (as in two for the price of one) and paints anyone as stupid and corrupt and if you do not feel the same way.
I do so wish ‘logic and reasoning’ were still part of the curriculum for HS. If everyone could identify say 6 or 8 of the most common logical fallacies, I think that would effect some interesting societal changes.
School was supposed to teach you how to think and analyze. Sadly, the progs have succeeded, and now it just inculcates them on what to think.
Public school is indoctrination/baby sitting
What’s “Proficient”
Standards for the training the Militia are prescribed by Congress, so Congress.
Article 1 Section 8
Which has jack shit to do with a right reserved for the body of the people. You’re just trotting out a BS argument the SCotUS laughed out of court almost a decade ago.
Let me spell it out for you, I think there is in the framework on the Constitution the requirement that people get a certain level of training. Said training is NOT a requirement for your second amendment rights, but never the less, a legal requirement, if you want to carry a gun or not. The standards of said training can be governed by Congress.
… and nowhere in the CotUS does Congress have the authority to press-gang people into a militia. In fact, the 1st and 13th amendments more or less prohibit it.
13th amendment doesn’t work very well in regards to military service, but good try. You do know that selective service is still a thing. As for the whole, conscientious objection argument, that is still up in the air.
Selective service is only still a thing because nobody has had standing to challenge it for almost 50 years. I can think of at least half a dozen constitutional challenges based on precedent since Vietnam.
Ahhh yes, the “common sense gun owner.” Must be exactly like those “Pro-gun Democrats” I’ve met in blue states; folks who will happily own guns until the state commands some or all of them be tossed into the furnace, after which they would immediately comply, and probably rat you out for refusing to do so in the name of “common sense gun control.”
On Jan. 12, Yoxall and his girlfriend, Heidi Jones, were driving to Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., where she was going to run a 10K race. As they left Phoenix, they saw the Arizona Department of Public Safety trooper enter westbound I-10 from the on-ramp at Arizona 85.
Am I missing something here? Was felon boy committing another felony by illegally carrying in the State of California?
Any requirement that costs money, or needs the approval of the state is a restriction on the Right…just like when democrats used Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests to keep blacks from voting.
This is the problem with any mandated training requirement……the Europeans use training requirements to keep the few hunting shot guns out of the hands of normal people…..we don’t want to give the government that power here….
“You have to show me you’re proficient if I’m going to let you carry those weapons. …”
And you have to show me you’re proficient if I’m going to let you spout that noise.
Lets try some other rights with that phrase, shall we?
“You have to show me you’re proficient if I’m going to let you deny troops housing.”
“You have to show me you’re proficient if I’m going to let you demand a warrant.”
“You have to show me you’re proficient if I’m going to let you escape double jeopardy.”
“You have to show me you’re proficient if I’m going to let you have a trial by jury.”
Nope, doesn’t make any sense for those either.
As someone who has just gotten his rights restored as well, I feel like this guy is out of line. I feel blessed and privileged to be in a country where I am able to buy guns…it has been a humbling experience. I have NO PLACE impeding on other American’s rights, however, given that I have been granted a second chance. You save one cop’s life and now you are an authority on who gets to do what? No buddy. …”shall not be infringed.” End of story. You don’t get to tell me when and what I am qualified to carry. Not even Massad Ayoob has that privilege. You can get a one way ticket to Europe for fairly cheap right now.
While I’d like to think that most people who carry are proficient with their firearm, however I know that is not the case. In my State (Virginia) all it takes is a basic NRA pistol course (classroom only) and that counts as meeting the training requirement for a Permit. You could have never fired a handgun in your life and still be able to get the permit to carry. Then again some of the worse shots I’ve seen at the range are federal law enforcement so even a training standards is no guarantee of proficiency.
With all that being said I have no right to demand that someone meets X set of requirements to exercise their right to keep and bare arms any more than I have a right to say they must have an IQ above room temperature to speak their mind. I just have to assess the situation as it unfolds and make adjustments to how I need to act/react.
Justin, you said much in that last line. It seems so many people have forgotten that they are responsible for themselves and their feelings, not all the rest of us. It used to be only a child could go about expecting others to accommodate them, now anything at all is subject to being a required accommodation by someone somewhere. How exactly does the free exchange of ideas work if you can’t say anything anyone might find offensive when there is someone who will be offended regardless of what you say? Since when did anyone have a right not to be offended? How is it that all the things we used to find offensive are ‘normal’ now, and the things we used to have pretty well settled are now deemed offensive?
We are witnessing the death of a culture and a society, the Republic can’t be too far behind.
Just plain bullshit. “Shall not”.
I’m better than you syndrome is greatly manifested in this fellows B.S. Wanta be somebody! Hey! was dude commenting
that he is better than everyone else because he shot somebody because of his training and thinks he has a podium for better than thou self enhancement!
I live in Illinois. Nearby Indiana has lifetime carry(open & concealed) with NO QUALIFIERS. And NO problems with it…be like Indiana or have constitutional carry.
And with the recent Indiana Supreme Court decision in Pinner, we have also eliminated the last, remaining argument against passage of constitutional carry. (I’m a bit surprised that the decision didn’t get any airplay on TTAG. It’s kind of a big deal, as Ron Burgundy would say.)
“You have to show me you’re proficient if I’m going to let you carry those weapons. …”
Yeah, sorry, that’s not how the second amendment works. Or any other right listed in the constitution.
There’s something wrong with this, it says he is “a good guy with a gun and believes in gun control”
I thought there was no such thing as a good guy with a gun. He could not have ever saved a cops life because bad guys can’t commit crimes (that would be illegal) and the police are always there to protect us from danger.
Please correct the article to reflect the proper method for thinking /s
A drunken ape could fire a gun and hit a man sized target. This is why training requirements are complete bullshit. What’s “proficient”? Will “proficient” translate to real world scenarios? Most likely not.
This guy just sounds like an elitist who has his own concept of “special” and if you aren’t “special” he doesn’t want you armed.
“Common Sense” in any sentence related to firearms translates directly into the American english language as “I’m a FING communist, sliding off into delerious dictatorial facism. Somebody just FING KILL ME NOW”.”
Use those terms like that all you want, just know how you sound to other people.
While you decide…?
YOU ?
Makes me open to the consideration of the question of whether or not it’s safe to have you sucking our air.
If one were to raise that question.
I don’t have to show you squat, you jackwagon. My freedom to exercise my natural rights and individual liberty don’t depend on your permission. My authority of exercise derives from our Creator, who personally endows each individual with said authority.
In short: go pound sand.
So does 2a equal concealed carry? I think they are linked but not the same. I believe that we the citizens have a duty to adhere to the principals of freedom espoused in the constitution. It is also our duty to debate and decide how we are to be governed and update and interpret the constitution as such. I love the constitution and have even sworn to protect it but I also remember that at one point governance under the constitution excluded 60+% of people who have now been enfranchised. America is exceptional because of its debate not in spite of it.
OK folks let’s try to be a little be reasonable.
1) USA Today is the entity labeling this man as “pro-gun control”. He’s not claiming that label. Personally, I would not consider someone who believes in shall issue CCW permits as being “pro-gun control”. BTW, this man was never convicted of a felony (if he had been, federal law would have resulted in a lifetime prohibition). He could have been charged with a felony, but instead was charged with a misdemeanor that resulted in a state prohibition. It was this prohibition that was lifted.
2) If you think that SCOTUS is EVER going to rule a shall issue permitting system unconstitutional, DREAM ON. As long as the presumption is that we are legally entitled to a permit after passing reasonable training and background check requirements, they are going to rule that system constitutional. No, this is not a blank check and yes, there is a legal definition of reasonable. Given that many states require only 16 hours training for licensure as an armed security guard, any more than that would clearly be unreasonable.
3) The truth is that many of us are conflicted about this. We firmly believe that the right to carry is a constitutional right – but we also value training.
Please feel free to disagree with his, or my positions – but it is not fair to put either of us in they same category as Bloomberg.
And we can’t have both why??
“You have to show me you’re proficient if I’m going to let you carry those weapons…”
I don’t have to show him a damn thing, and he can go eat a dick if he thinks I’m waiting for people like him to “let” me do anything.
We have had gun control as a public safety measure since 1934, on a federal level, with the NFA34; followed by the GCA68 in the 1960’s (which some may argue is Wiemar/Nazi plagiarized), and Brady in the 90’s. Including the now defunct “assault weapons ban” (also the 90’s), thats 4 major federal laws passed in almost 100 years, add to that the thousands of local and state laws, and if you ask me, if gun control worked as a public safety policy, then gun control proponents would not be constantly needing to “demand more”.
With all those laws being passed encompassing almost 100 years of our history, if weapons laws made for good public safety policy, we’d all be living in the violence free utopia that those proponents constantly promise will be the result of letting them violate, yet again, that which shall not be infringed.
The most glaring indictment of modern American weapons control laws is in the FACT that gun control is an abject failure as a public safety measure.
If background checks worked, and so-called “universal background checks” and government being able to deny Americans their rights based on secret watch lists would do that much better- then explain the ever-growing list of modern mass shooters who passed their BG checks and were able to buy their weapons in accordance with such laws?
Gun control has had almost 100 years, four major federal acts and countless other laws to prove any merit it may have had as a public safety measure.
By any measure quantifiable by statistics like those garnered by the records kept by such as the FBI, gun control has been a massive failure.
Yet we still “need more”, according to the “common sense” crowd?
Common sense must not mean what it used to, because if it did, it would be clear to anyone who actually had such that gun control is a massive failure and no new laws will make the ones we already have work any better.
I get the feeling we’ve been expertly trolled in these comments. Some of the implications are amusing.
I love the way MSM throws the Gun Control label on anything they can… like gun control just means one thing. Of course, bait and switch is their game anyway. “It’s just common sense… but we’ll be taking them all by the time we’re finished.”
Good luck with that.
Typical authoritarian twit. He’s going to “let me.”
Thanks a lot pal.
Comments are closed.