Pistol Mfg. Settlement Benefit--unanticipated

A

Art Eatman

Staff in Memoriam
I heard on CNN that Glock may join S&W. Now, one condition I read was that a prospective purchaser must be a "certified" shooter.

Could this mean that a lot more people will get a formal training in shooting handguns? Would this not be a good thing?

Would not more people go ahead and get their CCW/CHL as well? After all, in Texas' program you have to prove you know the law and can qualify as an accurate shooter. I think more people would just go ahead and get "the whole deal".

There may be some positive unintended consequences we never thought of. Plus, a lot of folks who in the past "just walked in and bought a gun" would learn what we have been griping about, first-hand. We might get some government-induced converts to our views about intrusiveness!

Points to ponder, Art
 
The way I see it, it's bad news.

Another argument for the anti's to push for licensing gun owners -- "See? Even the people who make guns think gun owners should be licensed". Never mind the fact that Glock said "certification". In this environment, one man's certification is another's licensing.

------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
Chicken and egg. How do you learn to shoot without having a gun? Why should you learn on a model you're not going to use? You can't legislate away idiots who won't learn. They'll make sure they forget it all if they are forced to take "a class".

Lessee, it also violates the 2nd amendment...
 
Many states have some sort of certification of one kind or another. When I lived in Florida, minor had to be certified in gun safety before getting a hunting license. Now as a resident of Oregon, we need a safety cert to get a CCW. Reality is that if you have a valid CCW, you are already registered.

This is going to be a big week or two. Everyone has to agree or this deal dies. I will go with " it is all about money stupid " and the cities will not honor the deal. Already two have said NO.

I am trying to think clearly and as positive as possible. There are lots of what if's here and positive items that may benefit our ultimate cause. Our 2nd Amendment rights.

The deal itself has galvanized our side. One of the reasons the NRA keeps on barking is because every time they speak publicly, they get new member. Heard a number the other day, NRA said it is the most they have ever gotten in such a short period of time.

This debate has created some interest. Although not as much as we would like, our side of the story is being heard. Go to a gun store, they are packed with NEW gun owners.

This deal can explode in the Presidents face. I've said this before and I will say it again. The deal is vague and lots of frosting and cake. Already some anti's are grumbling that this deal does nothing. Some cities have said no to the deal. Now starts the real work of the enforcement, there are going to disagreement over the details of the language. Disagreement from all sides is what may ultimately kill the whole deal.

Let's assume that more manufactures join in. If the deal falls and the manufactures back out, it will be a victory for our side. It will demonstrate that the Anti's and Klinton have no power. And, that the manufactures tried to do this deal in good faith and the other side could not pull their side of the bargain.

The 1% clause. If you read the entire agreement, the last statement speaks about one percent of gross revenue to go to education. Who controls the disbursement of funds is unknown, but again, awareness always create interest. New members into our culture, we just regroup and fight the other day.

Robert

[This message has been edited by Robert the41MagFan (edited March 20, 2000).]
 
Having gone through 2 states classes for a CHL, I think that training is a great thing for a CHL license. If training in this deal wasn't part of the slippery slope attack, I might even agree that for a CHL it is necessary.

However training is expensive. It is a way to confine guns to the well to do.

Might the high schools offer training for free. Given I feel anyone who is lawabiding has the right to at least posess a firearm in their home - can we deny them that because of the financial burden of training.

Living in a poor city, this is real.

The RKBA isn't just for the affluent with
$800 Kimber Compacts.

It is for the working mom with a $150 SW Model 10 or even a $79 Lorcin.
 
When I was a kid living in Florida (we are talking late 60's, early 70's), the state legislature passed a law that if I remember correctly, ALL hunters had to pass a gun safety course. It was called Florida Safe hunter and it was offered in the public high schools as a night course. I took mine at Janet Reno's alma mater High School, but that was in the old days when she lived on a farm with mommy and toted a gun too. How times have changed.

Robert
 
All this crap begs the basic issue, and we have proven time and time again that you can't legislate common sense. Furthermore, we can't go around letting people believe that some inane law absolves them of personal responsibility. Every time we make something 'fool-proof', they go out an invent a better fool. Safety in YOUR house is YOUR responsibility. All the locks in the world won't change that, and do you really think its appropriate for the gov't to do safety inspections to se that you're following teh law?? It's all just too stupid. M2
 
Hey Art one bad thing is that in Illinois we don't have CCW. So all it would really be doing is increasing the amount a person would have to pay for a firearm.

I agree that training is good, but those who can't afford it can still get it for free from experienced shooters.

Unfortunately I see no benefits from these settlements and we should ban doing business with S&W and Glock.

They need to stand up for themselves and our rights if they want to keep our business.

The bad thing is Herr Klinton may have developed a way to destroy the gun manufactures from the inside out.

If they lose the lawsuit and go out of business... no more guns. :(

If we boycott them and they go out of business... no more guns. :(

Can you say Catch 22? :mad:
 
I'm not for mandating training as a qualifier for gun ownership.

I believe in training for CCW holders. I'm not entirely certain about mandating that, though. Arguments?
 
Short answer:

It would be a very good thing, and an exceptionally crappy way of achieving that good thing.
Hope this helped.
 
Read in another site that Glock is weighing their options. You might give them a call and give them a gentle nudge in the right direction.

770-432-1202
 
If we expect the Second Amendment to be respected we must resist ALL infringements regardless of how attractive they are!

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
It's bad, bad, bad. The second amendment is a fundamental right, and as such, cannot be abridged by any significant prior restraint on its exercise. Lulling the public into believing that training and certification is a pre-requisite for owning and using a firearm, though training in general is a very good thing, is just a few steps from bans and confiscation, because the next step will be to gradually increase the level of training and red tape to the point where it's not even practical to own a gun (as it is in Britian). Total bans would then be forthcoming.
 
1. I agree about infringements against the Second Amendment. I can't afford to file suit and take it to the Supreme Court. And who knows what the Nine Penguins would decide, Constitution or no Constitution? One reason nobody has really tried for a Supreme Court decision is that the Supremes are not trusted to truly follow the Constitution!

2. I'm not going to boycott anybody. A corporation must turn a profit or go out of business. The cost of lawyers, even were S&W to win in court, would leave them in the red for years. I'd hate to lose the option of buying an S&W or a Glock.

3. You think this is bad? You oughta be in the light airplane bidness! It's even worse!

'Nuff, Art
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top