[janice6]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

No. Is a civilian going to stop another civilian in a vehicle? I could go on & on with examples.

I agree.

I think....A cop's job is to confront situations and people that are potentially destructive. He is therefore, exposed to many more situations that require a weapon then civilians. He also has designated authority to use the weapon with legal support, and thus is able to command compliance with a gun, but without shooting it.

A civilian's only authority is the bullet coming out of the barrel. No more.

A CCW owner is not supposed to "seek out" confrontations, just to avoid when possible and use a weapon only as a last resort. By this reasoning, CCW holders (civilians) should experience far far fewer situations requiring deadly force.

This is my opinion and may be counter to most.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by Deaf Smith

No, we have a set of rights in the constitution. Unfortunately we don't have any written set of RESPONSIBILITIES in the constitution. Now you have a right to keep and bear arms, but it's your responsibility to know what laws affect that and there are alot of laws! It's up to you to find out.

Yes I do advocate getting as much training as you can afford, but that is up to the individual. Judging from the 'American Rifleman' magazine's 'Armed Citizen' not many have training but they do well.

So it's up to the individual not the government nannies.

Deaf

^ Well said...and I agree.

[eracer]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Perhaps you missed his words...
"Pretending that training is not crucial to the continued existence of that right is short-sighted at best. "

The obvious implication is that he acknowledges it as a "right" today that is jeopardized by a lack of training...i.e., subject to change, which is why I made the comment.

And yes, we can argue about the definition of each term in the second amendment - e.g., well-regulated militia meaning 'the people' or something else. However that might be better served by a separate thread.

The idea that a militia (The People) should be trained in a formal manner (well-regulated) is central to this thread. That language is as much a part of the 2nd Amendment as "Shall not be infinged."

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by eracer

The idea that a militia (The People) should be trained in a formal manner (well-regulated) is central to this thread. That language is as much a part of the 2nd Amendment as "Shall not be infinged."

So you must have some past ruling that supports your interpretation of the second amendment, right?

[Darkangel1846]

Actually I'm one that thinks that advanced training is a real good idea if your gonna pack heat. I've been to several classes and actually have more training then most police officers. I think it can only help you in a shooting case. But thats JMHO

[Gunnut 45/454]

TBO
Then change the title to "Sheriff offers his opinion that he thinks CCW is bad?" Doesn't want unqualified people carrying in his OPINION! Because thats exactly what it is and UNQUALIFIED OPINION! I take it he was one of the Sheriffs and Chiefs that wanted to be able to deny CCW to whom ever thay wanted- IE May issue!

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by Darkangel1846

Actually I'm one that thinks that advanced training is a real good idea if your gonna pack heat. I've been to several classes and actually have more training then most police officers. I think it can only help you in a shooting case. But thats JMHO

I suspect most here believe training is a good and responsible CCW folks should get training. It looks like the real debate is whether it should be a requirement for carrying. On this point, I say "no".

[FireForged]

I stand by my opinions but in the spirit of following the mods direction (which i missed until now) I have removed my post. best regards to all.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

On the other hand, I have no reason to stop someone in a vehicle. Stopping someone "on your property" is pretty vague. I don't live in a gated community...however I believe there are plenty of threads discussing that one.

Once the bullets start flying, there is no difference between gun techniques a LEO needs to end the situation, and a CCWer needs to end the situation.

Yes, CCWers won't be doing car stops. But a CCWer might get stopped by another driver in a road rage incident. For both the the LEO doing a car stop, and the CCWer who gets stopped because of a road rage incident (both are on the side of the road, car to car), and gunfire erupts, will there be a difference in the gun skills required?

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

I suspect most here believe training is a good and responsible CCW folks should get training. It looks like the real debate is whether it should be a requirement for carrying. On this point, I say "no".

Actually, my prior posts said that I don't believe local LEOs should be required to undergo (whatever) hours of gun (initial and annual follow-up) training, if the local CCWers don't have to.

Other than that local LEOs have the potential to get into more shootings, once the bullets start flying, there is no difference in techniques (ie there is NO such thing as "LEO handgun techniques" vs "CCWer handgun techniques") to resolve the situation.

[Patchman]

Originally Posted by FireForged

There is a universe of difference between a laymans use of a firearm and occupational pressional use of the same. A person who has a duty and responsibility to use a firearm in defense of self or others in every conceivable kind of situation should be held to a higher standard than those who do not.

Why? Are the LEOs pistols so much more deadly than CCWers' pistols that the LEOs must be held to a higher standard?

Or, once the bullets start flying, must LEOs account for every bullet fired, while CCWers don't?

I do not believe that a civilian should have to be proficient at 25 yards or rolling around in the dirt in order to lawfully carry a pistol. I do however, believe that a LEO should be.

I'll agree only if there has NEVER been (and never will be) a case of a civilian taking a 25 yard shot. Or never gets rolling on the ground with a BG.

What if a person is in a wheelchair? Should they be held to the same standard as a LEO?

Are they allowed to use the same pistols & ammo as LEOs? Should a CCWer in a wheelchair be held to a lesser standard than a CCWer not in a wheel chair?

[FireForged]

I stand by my opinions but in the spirit of following the mods direction (which i missed until now) I have removed my post. best regards to all.

[Sam Spade]

Kinda strange to see members on this forum arguing that cops are a special class of people. I may link this thread the next time someone howls that they weren't allowed to attend "LE only" training or have access to "LE only" equipment.

[Patchman]

So basically the argument is, because the vast majority of CCWers won't be getting into gunfights, training shouldn't be required?

OK.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

Kinda strange to see members on this forum arguing that cops are a special class of people.

A "special class of people"? Really?

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

A "special class of people"? Really?

Hey, you're one of the ones arguing that anything resembling a cop standard or cop requirement ought not apply to you. You've essentially rejected any modern application of "well-regulated" in the field of skill at arms.

Yet somehow I bet you'd be livid if a 10-round magazine limit were pushed again because you don't use a handgun in the manner that cops do.

Yup, kinda strange.

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

Hey, you're one of the ones arguing that anything resembling a cop standard or cop requirement ought not apply to you.

What a gross exaggeration and complete crap!

What I have argued is that police train for some situations that are part of their jobs that ought not be part of a CCW person's plans. I don't think civilians should be required to train on how to pull over a vehicle, how to do a PIT manuever, how to safely cuff someone, etc. Is there some common ground where the training would be similar or the same? Sure. I'm just flagging that carrying a gun as a civilian should involve training that is applicable to situations a civilian might encounter. For example, a civilian should not take on the risks of trying to handcuff a person, or getting out of their vehicle to approach another vehicle with a gun. The underlying point is a civilian carrying a gun shouldn't confuse their role in society with that of a police officer's.

Talk about flying off the handle based on a grossly erroneous assumption. Come on, Sam...you're better than that.

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

You've essentially rejected any modern application of "well-regulated" in the field of skill at arms.

Again, the point regarding "well-regulated" cuts much deeper than whether or not someone applying for a CCW should be required to take a class. I don't agree with the earlier gent's interpretation. Plain & simple. I do believe, and have repeatedly said over the years advocated, that people who plan to carry should do so responsibly. Part of accepting that responsibility should include training.

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

Yet somehow I bet you'd be livid if a 10-round magazine limit were pushed again because you don't use a handgun in the manner that cops do.

Yup, kinda strange.

Yes, your entire response is "kinda strange", illogical, and baseless.

[Sam Spade]

Okay, point blank question: should a state be able to require some proof of competency before a citizen is allowed to go armed in public?

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

Okay, point blank question: should a state be able to require some proof of competency before a citizen is allowed to go armed in public?

Sure....first you address the other portions of your reply above.

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Sure....first you address the other portions of your reply above.

I disagree with your assessment of my observations. Since you didn't ask any questions of me, what else can I address?

Your turn. Should a state be able to require some proof of competence before a citizen is allowed to go armed in public?

[jdavionic]

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

I disagree with your assessment of my observations. Since you didn't ask any questions of me, what else can I address?

That's what I thought. You're quite eager to throw stones left & right based on a completely erroneous and baseless assumption. Yet, you flounder citing any specifics to support your grossly inaccurate assertions. Fine. On to what will likely result in numerous 2A debates.

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

Your turn. Should a state be able to require some proof of competence before a citizen is allowed to go armed in public?

As I’ve said, the term “a well-regulated militia” needs to be put in the context of the time it was written and the intent for which it was written. Our Founding Fathers were concerned about having the government disarm the civilians and imposing tyranny on the people.

Digging further, the term “a well-regulated militia” should not be divorced from the entire context of the second amendment:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

Note, the term is used with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. So putting it together, what did they mean by“a well-regulated militia” in the context of the second amendment? Based on the writings of the Founding Fathers and, yes, my interpretation, I believe they meant regulated by the people, not the government.

So do I support the government imposing a regulation on the people that would or could infringe on their right to keep and bear arms? No.

[Sam Spade]

The federalists and anti-federalists would both disagree with you. Congress has the authority to regulate the militia. Article I, Section 8. Regardless, mandatory enrollment and training in the militia was a fact of life for every citizen (at least able-bodied males) of the 18th Century. So in the "non-living document" context that you prefer, state mandated training for the body of the people was a reality. By all means, advocate for original meaning---but be aware that here it means that the several states can set a time and performance standard for the whole of the people expected to be armed. For a historical discussion of the militia, who regulated it and how, you might go here: http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq3.asp It doesn't support your interpretation whatsoever, and it uses primary sources from the 18th Century in doing that.

As to rocks being thrown...sorry, called it the way I saw it. If you've got questions instead of mere denunciations, ask 'em.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

Note, the term is used with “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. So putting it together, what did they mean by“a well-regulated militia” in the context of the second amendment? Based on the writings of the Founding Fathers and, yes, my interpretation, I believe they meant regulated by the people, not the government.

Actually, I believe your interpretation fails to consider Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper #29

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note his use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

[harrygunner]

The term "Expert" is completely irrelevant. The value of a statement is independent of who states it. A bum could give great advice and a king could be completely off base.

Forget government mandate, could the average CCW permit holder improve their chances of survival (legally and physically)?

I had my permit for two years and while standing in booth at an indoor range, I looked at my decent group and asked myself "Can it be this easy to survive a gunfight?". I decided, no way, and get more training.

But, knowing how to use a gun while rolling in the dirt is not enough. It's like the difference between knowing how to use a phone and having an intelligent conversation on it. Maybe trainers could supplement discussions on state laws and proper grips with intelligent gun ownership.

Telling a permit holder, "You're not a cop" says it all. But some may not hear it or understand all that it implies. To me, some the news items Sheriff Nehls mentioned were about people who got themselves into 'no win' situations through decisions made several minutes before a gun was introduced. Another example, I've read on the 'net several times, is of someone posting something to the effect of: "What if I drew my gun and the BG didn't lay down like I commanded him to?".

There are lots of questions on gun sites that suggest people haven't worked out the "having" part. More time seems to have been spent on the "using" part.

[Bren]

And by "experts' they mean the coalition of anti-gunners and people who make a living from selling firearms training? yeah, I thought so.