Required training for nationwide CCW

[SteelJM1]

A drivers license isn't needed to drive. You can drive your car or what have you on your private property all you want without a license, as can your kid or dog. Once you decide to use public (i.e. state or federally maintained) roads, then you need the license to operate on them. So drivers licenses are not unconstitutional. You can walk from Cape Cod to L.A. without a license if you want. They're not infringing on your right for free travel.

 

[riggins_83]

I support a test to verify US citizenship and non-felon status. Period, end of sentence.

+1. The basic class tells you not to wave a firearm around loaded, check to be sure it's loaded, maintain your guns, etc. If you don't have enough ambition to practice then.... perhaps it's time to start.

I'd love a nationwide CCW or at least everything but the people's republic of CA. That state just scares me!

 

[PT111]

A drivers license isn't needed to drive. You can drive your car or what have you on your private property all you want without a license, as can your kid or dog. Once you decide to use public (i.e. state or federally maintained) roads, then you need the license to operate on them. So drivers licenses are not unconstitutional. You can walk from Cape Cod to L.A. without a license if you want. They're not infringing on your right for free travel.

I thought that Antipita's list of court decisions demonstrated that we did not need a license to drive on the public highways. That was my understanding of it.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This is turning into one of those weird "Federal income taxes are unconstitutional, we don't have to pay them!" conversations, except with firearms. People who follow the anti-tax conspiracy theory, and stop paying taxes? They wind up in jail.

It is the same with firearms. You can make all sorts of claims about the legality of registration and licencing, but at the end of the day the actions of the federal government are 100% Consitutional and legally binding, unless they are later overturned. Just because something is a legal right doesn't mean that it isn't also fair game for regulations. The government created the right, and the government gets to set the limits and rules.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yeah! The government already took our cars, and they're going to come after our guns next!!

You are laughing right now; but in a dozen years when they come for your carbon-emitting, fossil-fuel guzzling SUV, you probably won't be chuckling so hard. The Government already gives preferential tax treatment to hybrid vehicles. It isn't at all far-fetched to see them treating SUVs like so-called "assault weapons" in the future and some lobbying groups are already advancing those kinds of plans right now.

However, I would love to see guns treated like cars. It would be the biggest deregulation of guns ever.

You see, that is one problem your little one-liner overlooks. There is currently no large organized movement of people in the media and Congress who have the total elimination of cars as their stated goal; but it turns out there are lots of people in Congress and the media who feel that way.

If someone says they plan to punch you in the face and tries to do it, does it not count until they actually succeed? Should you continue to stand still on the basis that they haven't actually made contact yet?

Finally, exactly what problem is regulation solving in this case. Right now the number of accidental firearms deaths is miniscule. So exactly what problem are we correcting by more regulation?

 

[OuTcAsT]

The government created the right,

Joe, Respectfully Sir, You could not possibly be more incorrect, and this may be the reason that this issue confuses you. The following is an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, the 'foundation' of our nation;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

A Right is not "created" or "bestowed" by a government. they do not come from Congress or Senate. They are not conferred by any court.

You are endowed with basic human rights by the same "process" ( Call it whatever you will ) that started the beating of your heart, or enabled your first breath.

A Government cannot grant rights it can only use the law to attempt to put limits or constraints on them. [The original intent was to protect them]

A right is an absolute, that is only changed, or diminished, by your (collective) allowing it to be.

For instance, the 2nd amendment does not give you the right to keep or bear arms, it merely "affirms" that right already exists (you are alive, hence you have that right) and makes it understood that government cannot change that.

Unfortunately we know that government has changed it by "rules and regulations" And that is why we are ( or at least I am ) on this forum today. because we (collectively) do not believe they (should) have the authority to do so.

You see, the concept of "rights" has somehow been "reversed" by our educational system, and been taught 180 degrees from the way it actually exists. Sadly, (public) {Read; government funded} schools do not teach this properly any longer.

and the government gets to set the limits and rules.

Question for you Joe, who is the government ? Hint: Read the red section.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I know exactly what I'm saying, and I know I'm right. People are confused about rights, believe they come from some magical place in the sky. They don't: rights come from what groups of people get together and decide on. Rights aren't absolute, except where the government intervenes. Right don't exist except where the government intervenes.

All the Amendments created rights, or at least defined them into being for America. Rights don't come into being any other way. Of course, we're getting way off-topic, because to properly address the issue we'd have to go into all sorts of philosophical stuffs, theories of government, and possibly into stranger areas, like defining the word "exist."

I think I can sum it up this way: whatever your philosophical position on "rights" as an abstract concept, we live in a somewhat concrete world. In that world, and from a practical standpoint, governments create rights and the laws that govern those rights. It might not be the way you like it, but that's the way it works, and the way it has always worked. There's really no way of getting around it once you start packing bunches of people together.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Rights aren't absolute, except where the government intervenes. Right don't exist except where the government intervenes.

All the Amendments created rights, or at least defined them into being for America. Rights don't come into being any other way.

What you describe is the polar opposite of the Constitutional
Republic Form of governance that the United States operates on.

Again I ask, who is the government ?

Let me give you another hint, do the words "We the People"
have any significance to you ?

To make it clearer, Government does not control The "people", it remains a "servant" of the people, and exists only by our own graces, despite how it describes it's self.

If you wish to continue to be a firearms owner, for whatever purposes you do so, you need to think carefully about what you have been "taught" versus reality.

ETA: Your time here on TFL may be a great learning experience for you, if you approach things with an open mind, or you may dismiss it as some sort of kooky, fringe extremism, but the threat to your ability to defend yourself, provide food for your family, or enjoy shooting at the range is very real. I merely point this out respectfully, as a fellow firearm enthusiast. and will broach the subject no further in this thread. Apologies for the veer, seemed germane to the topic.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

If it makes you feel better to say "people create rights" and substitute "people" where I said "government" then that's fine... my point is the same. We decide what rights are, through the tool of government. We as a country can also change our minds, but it doesn't matter unless people/government change the laws. This isn't what I was "taught"... that's what reality actually looks like.

I don't think we're going to agree(and by that I mean "you change your mind" ) so I suggest we sort of drop it, unless you want to discuss this privately? Otherwise, I've kind of said everything I need to on that score, and don't want to poke anyone with a sharp stick over it... and I REALLY don't want to get poked back!!

 

[OuTcAsT]

Deleted . Sorry double-tap

 

[Wagonman]

I am still lost----have all the citations I have issued for driving without a DL been unconstitutional?

Is this a state's rights federalism issue?

 

[OuTcAsT]

I am still lost----have all the citations I have issued for driving without a DL been unconstitutional?

Is this a state's rights federalism issue?

Yes, and Yes, however it is a bit more complicated that that, perhaps this will help clarify (or cloud further) the issue;

The most common argument that drivers licenses violate a specific constitutional provision come from the "Priviliges and Immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment {"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"}.


However, in the "Slaughterhouse Cases", 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Court held that this only applies to the rights of national citizenship, (i.e. rights explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution) or, as Justice Stevens said in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), rights that are "firmly embedded in our jurisprudence", meaning rights that have long been established.
Another argument against drivers licenses come from another part of the 14th Amendment, the part which says {"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"}.

However, as long as there is a due process of State law to require drivers licenses, and as long as the laws apply equally to everyone, drivers licenses withstand this challenge, to a degree. On the first count, the fact that a state legislature has approved the law requiring a drivers license satisfies the due process requirement.

On the second count, there might be an argument to be made that we restrict licenses to people of a certain age (somewhere between 14-16 years old), and thus violate the equal protection clause. However, this type of challenge has been consistently rejected (such as laws regulating minimum drinking age), and represents a policy decision on behalf of state legislatures, rather than a constitutionally sound principle.

Where this all ties together is that firearms rights could, and in some instances are, being regulated in the same manner. That, and the fact that not many would be predisposed to take a citation for no DL to the SCOTUS.

However you slice it, the right to travel freely, by whatever means, is a right none the less, the only "privilege" that one gets is the chance to participate financially, in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Webleymkv]

Howabout this, offer firearms education in high school, like drivers ed, without making it mandatory...kinda like AZ already allows.

While I like this idea, I'd take it a step further and make it mandatory. I think something like your typical hunter safety course would be sufficient. Afterall, if the schools can teach things like the theory of evolution and sex-education that many parents find objectionable, why is safe gunhandling any different. Personally, I think the knowledge of how to safely handle a firearm is much more important than that of Darwinian theory.

Once everyone has had their safe-gunhandling class courtesy of their education, there will be no need to have a nationwide CCW class.

 

[Mello2u]

The government should not set any standards to issue a nationwide conceal carry permit if the person belongs to the class of citizens that are adult, are not convicted violent felons, and have not been adjudicated mentally incompetent.

Of course, should any person cause injury to someone in a negligent, reckless, wanton or intentional manner without justification, then they should be held legally responsible and pay the appropriate penalty whether civil or criminal.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

While I like this idea, I'd take it a step further and make it mandatory. I think something like your typical hunter safety course would be sufficient. Afterall, if the schools can teach things like the theory of evolution and sex-education that many parents find objectionable, why is safe gunhandling any different. Personally, I think the knowledge of how to safely handle a firearm is much more important than that of Darwinian theory.

Once everyone has had their safe-gunhandling class courtesy of their education, there will be no need to have a nationwide CCW class.

Yeah, I mean... if the government dares teach reality-based biology and sex-ed, as crazy as it is to teach scientific facts, they had damned well better teach gun stuffs!

I'm all for firearm classes in schools, because it certainly fits in with my position of firearm licencing being roughly equivalent to drivers licences. Sounds fine to me... but do people here reject basic science that includes the fact of evolution? Really?

 

[Webleymkv]

Yeah, I mean... if the government dares teach reality-based biology and sex-ed, as crazy as it is to teach scientific facts, they had damned well better teach gun stuffs!

I'm all for firearm classes in schools, because it certainly fits in with my position of firearm licencing being roughly equivalent to drivers licences. Sounds fine to me... but do people here reject basic science that includes the fact of evolution? Really?

When in my post did I ever reject science? My point is that if schools can teach things like evolution and sex-ed that many people find objectionable, why should firearms safety be some sort of special taboo? What I'm getting at is that there is a double standard: someone who objects to their child being taught a theory they don't believe in is some sort of reactionery zealot whose opinions should be ignored, but someone who objects to their child being taught how to safely handle a relatively common item is a prudent parent whose opinion should be taken very seriously.

 

[OuTcAsT]

When in my post did I ever reject science? My point is that if schools can teach things like evolution and sex-ed that many people find objectionable, why should firearms safety be some sort of special taboo? What I'm getting at is that there is a double standard: someone who objects to their child being taught a theory they don't believe in

* Sound of large can of worms being opened in background*

 

[Al Norris]

... but do people here reject basic science that includes the fact of evolution? Really?

The simple answer is: Yes. There are people that reject the Origin of Species. And Yes, there are people that fume over sex education in public schools. And Yes, there are people who post here that fall into into one or both categories.

This should come as no surprise to any student of human nature.

Going any further into this area, involves belief systems and/or faith and/or religion. Those are areas that are out of bounds for discussion on TFL. They are also off topic for this thread.

Let's not go there. <-- That's not a suggestion, btw.

 

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImprobaleJoe
... but do people here reject basic science that includes the fact of evolution? Really?

The simple answer is: Yes. There are people that reject the Origin of Species. And Yes, there are people that fume over sex education in public schools. And Yes, there are people who post here that fall into into one or both categories.

This should come as no surprise to any student of human nature.

Going any further into this area, involves belief systems and/or faith and/or religion. Those are areas that are out of bounds for discussion on TFL. They are also off topic for this thread.

Let's not go there. <-- That's not a suggestion, btw.

Just so that there isn't any confusion, it was not and is not my intention to start a debate about evolution or sex-education. I was merely using them as examples of how the finding of a certain subject as objectionable or offensive does not make sufficient grounds for banning its teaching.

 

[PT111]

Just remember that certain words will cause a reaction is some people just like seeing a gun will cause a reaction in some. It does not matter what context you use those words in someone will get upset and offended especially if used by certain people. For instance there is one certain word that will get many people fired for using it one time but others can use it all day and everyone witll laugh.

I am beginning tho think that shooter education is starting to fall into that category.