Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Boulder Canyon Bob# 32052L

National Reciprosity

Recommended Posts

When It gets moved to team sass, I'll find it and explain why I'm not so hot on this law.  I think hearing protection is much more important and it seems to be dead. 

Share this post


Link to post

My local sheriff requires CCW applicants complete a course taught by an NRA certified instructor or proof of handgun qualification on a DD214.  Many states have no training requirements other than a check to the local constabulary.  If there is to be Nationwide carry then there should also be Nationwide training.

Share this post


Link to post

Done did didit !

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Desert Pete SASS #42168 said:

My local sheriff requires CCW applicants complete a course taught by an NRA certified instructor or proof of handgun qualification on a DD214.  Many states have no training requirements other than a check to the local constabulary.  If there is to be Nationwide carry then there should also be Nationwide training.

I have never seen a handgun qualification on a DD214. We qualified with them if by the TO&E you carry one but that was about it. Only thing you ever put on your uniform was rifle. I have seen non Infantry put grenade and other stuff but never infantry. 

Share this post


Link to post

On the flip side. 

One excellent way to restrict concealed carry is through training.  Make it very rigorous and more expensive.  That way the poor and those who need defense the most will not have it.  Isn't that great!

 

That being said, I encourage all to get as much training and experience as possible.  I  just prefer to let the open market handle it with shooters encouraging and teach shooters.

 

So I hope we can get the law to pass.  I also like the suppressor effort, but I will gladly take whatever we can accomplish, one step at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Desert Pete SASS #42168 said:

  If there is to be Nationwide carry then there should also be Nationwide training.

 

Why?   The training and requirements for getting a drivers licence vary from state to state, and we have national reciprocity for that.

 

And driving a car is a privalidge.  Owning and carrying a gun is a right.  That's like saying we need proper training to go to church or speak out on an issue.

 

And then there is this...

 

Article IV, Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

 

Seems to me that we should already have reciprocity.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Arizona, in it's wisdom, has decided that if you have the right to carry openly. You also have the right to carry concealed. No permit needed. Of course this applies to legal possessors  and in this state only. Wise decision and I believe the rest of the nation should honor our rights, and follow suit toward national reciprocity to carry any way we desire following all laws.

 

In Arizona, a person over age 21 may legally carry a concealed firearm or deadly weapon without a permit within the state, except for certain prohibited locations, and must disclose the fact to a law enforcement officer if questioned. Although no longer required, a shall-issue CCW permit is still available and has certain advantages, including reciprocity with many other states having CCW laws.[1]

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

 

Why?   The training and requirements for getting a drivers licence vary from state to state, and we have national reciprocity for that.

 

And driving a car is a privalidge.  Owning and carrying a gun is a right.  That's like saying we need proper training to go to church or speak out on an issue.

 

And then there is this...

 

Article IV, Section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

 

Seems to me that we should already have reciprocity.  

 

 

 

Yes, the requirements vary a little, but you would be surprised how similar they are across the nation.   

 

I know gun ownership is a right, but having read Heller, I am not so sure carry can't be reasonably regulated.   I don't think there is anything wrong with a reasonable training requirement.  As long as it is reasonable.  Personally I don't mind keeping guns out of the hands of people who lack basic training.  I don't want to be shot by somebody who doesn't know one end of a gun from the other. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Arizona's  right to carry laws apply to non residents as well. The main reason they do still issue permits is for reciprocity with other states.  Assuming that you are not a prohibited person, of course. Please correct me if this is not currently correct.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Chili Pepper Jack said:

I have never seen a handgun qualification on a DD214. We qualified with them if by the TO&E you carry one but that was about it. Only thing you ever put on your uniform was rifle. I have seen non Infantry put grenade and other stuff but never infantry. 

My DD214, dated 18 August 1978, in box 26, titled "Decorations, medals, badges, commendations, citations and campaign ribbons awarded or authorized" has "45 AUTOMATIC 245 EXPERT, 28 AUG 75" listed.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bart Solo said:

Yes, the requirements vary a little, but you would be surprised how similar they are across the nation.   

 

I know gun ownership is a right, but having read Heller, I am not so sure carry can't be reasonably regulated.   I don't think there is anything wrong with a reasonable training requirement.  As long as it is reasonable.  Personally I don't mind keeping guns out of the hands of people who lack basic training.  I don't want to be shot by somebody who doesn't know one end of a gun from the other. 

 

 

Of course carry can be regulated! That’s why the antis try to “regulate”  carry and possession at every turn!!  Why should a law-abiding citizen be subjected to “regulation” when exercising a Constitutionally guaranteed right??  As to requiring training, anything “required” by the antis is likely to be overreaching and tantamount to a “use tax” used to prevent low income and fixed income persons from exercising their rights freely and without encumbrance!

 

Training is good, but should be voluntary. Who decides the level of training or the course of training “required”???  How many times have we seen “regulations” and “requirements” established that were onerous and or exclusive to the average citizen???

 

It’s messy, but a democratic republic is often messy.  When it’s working properly,  it protects the less fortunate and those who are being deprived of their rights.

 

Let’s get this legislation passed and move on to more of the needed changes that will help to restore the full meaning that the founding fathers intended when they wrote the Second Amendment!!

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Chili Pepper Jack said:

I have never seen a handgun qualification on a DD214. We qualified with them if by the TO&E you carry one but that was about it. Only thing you ever put on your uniform was rifle. I have seen non Infantry put grenade and other stuff but never infantry. 

 

I was an MP back in the 70s and we had both Pistol and Rifle Qual badges.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Smokin Gator SASS #29736 said:

Arizona's  right to carry laws apply to non residents as well. The main reason they do still issue permits is for reciprocity with other states.  Assuming that you are not a prohibited person, of course. Please correct me if this is not currently correct.

 

In Arizona, a person over age 21 may legally carry a concealed firearm or deadly weapon without a permit within the state, except for certain prohibited locations, and must disclose the fact to a law enforcement officer if questioned. Although no longer required, a shall-issue CCW permit is still available and has certain advantages, including reciprocity with many other states having CCW laws.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said:


Of course carry can be regulated! That’s why the antis try to “regulate”  carry and possession at every turn!!  Why should a law-abiding citizen be subjected to “regulation” when exercising a Constitutionally guaranteed right??  

 

Because firearms are dangerous to others in the hands of law-abiding citizens who don't know how to use them safely.  If you have ever been to a range with new shooters you realize just how dangerous they can be.  If somebody wants to walk around me and my family carrying a gun, I have a right to know they at least understand the basics of firearm safety.   

 

Training was the NRA's first mission.   It is wonderfully successful at training American sportsmen. I am sure it can design a program that is both comprehensive and inexpensive. 

 

Hunter safety programs in many states are little more than firearms safety programs gussied up and tied to a hunting license.  I don't feel unsafe when hunting because I know all of the younger people and most of the older people I encounter have had basic firearms training.   Tell me why I should feel less comfortable in the mall than I do in the field? 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post

This will be interesting to watch, but I suspect that it will go nowhere.  Why would a state with a burdensome (or even a slightly difficult) set of concealed carry requirements agree to allow those coming from less regulated states to be given the right to carry in that state without an upgrade?

 

If I called ANY of my Congressmen on this one, I would hear nothing but a laughbox on the other end (they are all urban folks of the other persuasion).   And if it reached the Senate, I would have to call Elizabeth Warren (Ugh!).

 

Sorry, but there is no way these folks will vote to "dilute" local control over concealed carry.

 

LL

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Hardcase Hardin said:

 

I was an MP back in the 70s and we had both Pistol and Rifle Qual badges.

I can see that with MP's the Pistol is the primary weapon, I also know there are all types of badges just saying that we never put anything on other then the primary weapon.

Share this post


Link to post

My congresswoman is one of the most anti-gun members there are! It's of no use whatsoever to contact her, I'm done with that moron!

 

Marcia Fudge:angry: Ohio

 

Check her out at your own risk!:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Bart Solo said:

 

Because firearms are dangerous to others in the hands of law-abiding citizens who don't know how to use them safely.  If you have ever been to a range with new shooters you realize just how dangerous they can be.  If somebody wants to walk around me and my family carrying a gun, I have a right to know they at least understand the basics of firearm safety.   

 

 

 

 

the same can be said about people driving automobiles with their nationally recognized drivers license.  lots and lots of people are killed everyday by auto crashes and yet the national acceptance of state licenses is still maintained.  what is the difference?

Share this post


Link to post

More children are killed accidentally in swimming pools and with accidents with guns. 

 

Obviously we need "state approved" training before anyone owns a pool - or goes near water.  Or tries to cross a street.

 

But it must be reasonable!  Who determines that?  If there is one accident, isn't it worth, oh, say a 4 year degree to avoid that?   You see, "reasonable" is largely defined by those you hang around with. 

 

You see it is a slippery slope that our founding fathers understood.  So they set up a LIMITED government that allowed for personal responsibility and personal freedom - a great deal of the latter has been lost. as is validated from this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, coloradoblackjack said:

the same can be said about people driving automobiles with their nationally recognized drivers license.  lots and lots of people are killed everyday by auto crashes and yet the national acceptance of state licenses is still maintained.  what is the difference?

I don't know of any state in the union that allows people to drive without demonstrating minimal proficiency and with some minor variation (right turn on red) we all follow the same rules of the road.   Actually the Department of Transportation has done a good job making sure the basic driving rules are followed across the nation.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Marauder SASS #13056 said:

More children are killed accidentally in swimming pools and with accidents with guns. 

Only a fool allows a child around a pool without first making sure they know how to swim.   If you are such a fool and your child drowns that is bad, but if your gun goes off while you are inadvertently pointing it at my child, that is really, really bad.   Maybe you like wandering around in a world with untrained fools not following firearms basics but I don't.  I don't want those fools denying me my right to not be shot.   

 

I know what I am arguing is said to be a slippery slope to an outright ban, but sometimes you have to protect your rights in a reasonable and rational manner.  The NRA should get behind universal firearms safety training.   It would sell more guns and ammunition and would probably result in fewer firearms deaths.   

 

Share this post


Link to post

What you are saying about swimming is "commons sense."  The government has normally not been capable of that.

 

As you note, it is the parents (and individual) responsibility.  That can never be fully substituted by the government.

 

A lot depends on where or to whom we put our trust.

 

In God and individuals, or in the "state."  I know individuals are flawed, so some government restriction is required.

 

But in too many cases, the government has shown it cannot be trusted - especially in protecting individual rights. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Bart Solo said:

Yes, the requirements vary a little, but you would be surprised how similar they are across the nation.   

 

I know gun ownership is a right, but having read Heller, I am not so sure carry can't be reasonably regulated.   I don't think there is anything wrong with a reasonable training requirement.  As long as it is reasonable.  Personally I don't mind keeping guns out of the hands of people who lack basic training.  I don't want to be shot by somebody who doesn't know one end of a gun from the other. 

 

 

 

The reason you're going to run into resistance (As demonstrated right here in this thread) is that you're leaving the definition of "reasonable" in the hands of politicians. Quite a few of them think eliminating guns entirely is reasonable.

 

But let's run with "reasonable" just for fun.  Let's say reasonable ends up being a four hour class with a range qualification to follow.  Who pays for that?  If the individual has to pay you're creating a poll tax.  We'll have to pay money to exercise a constitutional right.  No, that won't fly.  If it's free then it's really not because "free" stuff is paid for by the government.  You want to add millions upon millions of dollars to the federal budget?  We'd still be paying to exercise a constitutional right, just with tax dollars instead of directly.  Nope, that's not going to fly either. 

 

Either we are a free society with all the associated risks that go along with that or we're slaves to the government.

 

P.S.  The above is why I oppose national reciprocity mandated by the federal government.  What they grant they can take away........................or impose "reasonable" restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Marauder SASS #13056 said:

But in too many cases, the government has shown it cannot be trusted - especially in protecting individual rights. 

 In a Democracy we are the government.   The government can be trusted if we pay attention.   It can't be trusted if we don't hold them accountable. 

 

I want government to protect my individual right to not be shot by some untrained yahoo who doesn't know basic firearms safety, doesn't care and doesn't know how to put a round on paper but loves to walk around with a loaded Glock.   

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, Bart Solo said:

I know what I am arguing is said to be a slippery slope to an outright ban, but sometimes you have to protect your rights in a reasonable and rational manner.  The NRA should get behind universal firearms safety training.   It would sell more guns and ammunition and would probably result in fewer firearms deaths.   

 

 

 

The NRA has ALWAYS been behind firearms safety training.  They literally wrote the book on it.  What they won't get behind, and I agree with them, is making it mandatory prior to owning/using a firearm. Once again, it's a poll tax.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

We'll have to pay money to exercise a constitutional rig

They have to pay money to buy the gun.  Why should they have to pay money to exercise their constitutional right?   By the way it isn't a poll tax.   A poll tax is a tax imposed on people to vote.  

 

14 minutes ago, Shooting Bull said:

The NRA has ALWAYS been behind firearms safety training.  They literally wrote the book on it.  What they won't get behind, and I agree with them, is making it mandatory prior to owning/using a firearm. 

I totally agree, but I am not talking about the right to own a firearm (absolutely protected under Heller.)   I am not talking about your right to use a firearm.  Nobody has a right to simply shoot a firearm in a direction that endangers others.  Try claiming your second amendment rights if your stray bullet hits a baby in a stroller.  I am talking about carrying a pistol on the street where any number of things can happen, many of them bad.   Heller says there can be reasonable restrictions on carry.   I think the shooting community should get out front in defining those reasonable restrictions.   Mandatory  training is a reasonable restriction. because it acknowledges the right to carry and removes the argument that all firearms should be banned under all circumstances.   

 

Look, I don't carry very often, but I do like to take long walks in the woods behind my house.  Lately we endured a rash of killings of old men like me walking trails in our community and we also have mountain lions in the area.   I want the right to carry a pistol for my personal protection when I am alone in the woods.  But I want to be sure the guy walking up to me, who is also armed,  knows how to properly store a concealed pistol.  How would you protect my rights or don't they matter.    

Share this post


Link to post

If I remember correctly, the Second Amendment says nothing about the right of the People as long as they have some random level of training.

 

Although I agree people who carry firearms must be very very aware of the responsibility they have taken upon themselves and ideally would have some training, I'm going to default to the Founding Fathers' intent.

 

There's enough government intrusion into every corner of our lives today. Let's not give them anymore.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Dantankerous said:

If I remember correctly, the Second Amendment says nothing about the right of the People as long as they have some random level of training.

No but Heller says that the Second Amendment is no different than any other constitutional right.  It can be restricted in reasonable ways.  I would rather the shooting community define reasonable than abandon that chore to the anti-gun crowd.   I think we will do a better job.   

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Dantankerous said:

If I remember correctly, the Second Amendment says nothing about the right of the People as long as they have some random level of training.

 

 

A point to ponder.  When 2A was written, the madatory firearms training was along the lines of "if you couldnt shoot straight, you starved."  As many plainmen and women of the old west found out. 

 

I still recall a biography my grandmother wrote when she was in grade school.  They were moving from oklahoma heading towards Arizona.  Somehwere along the way, they were ambushed by Indians (native americans to those sensitive folk). She recalls being a child and the fear of the arrows impaling their covered wagon.  Her father pulled a firearm and with never firing a shot, ran off the ambush. But it shows how far removed, from just two generations, we have become.  

Share this post


Link to post

By the way what is a "well ordered militia" if it isn't trained?  I know that is a bad argument, but you can't say the founders didn't consider training when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Shooting Bull said:

 

 

The NRA has ALWAYS been behind firearms safety training.  They literally wrote the book on it.  What they won't get behind, and I agree with them, is making it mandatory prior to owning/using a firearm. Once again, it's a poll tax.

+1, Ditto, Harrumph!

Share this post


Link to post

Reasonable restrictions on my firearm ownership and carry=NONE

The right to KEEP and BEAR arms Shall NOT be infringed.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bart Solo said:

They have to pay money to buy the gun.  Why should they have to pay money to exercise their constitutional right?   By the way it isn't a poll tax.   A poll tax is a tax imposed on people to vote.  

 

  

  

 

 

The term "poll tax" is most often used in reference to regulations placed on people by the government that cause citizens to have to pay or to meet those regulations in order to exercise a Constitutional right!  "Poll tax" is EXACTLY the proper descriptive term what you propose!!!

 

Exercising a right does NOT absolve he citizen of responsibility!  You CAN shout fire in a theater!!  IT IS NOT ILLEGAL!!

 BUT!!! You are responsible for the damage or injuries that occur!!! 

 

What representatives of "the shooting community" would you have to set the standards!!  How would you propose to do this without keeping politics and those who would try to set the bar so high that the average, fixed income, low income, or otherwise under represented portion of the public would be unable to meet your standard??  How would you suggest that the "regulations" be permanently established so that future "requirements" can't be added to deprive the least of our citizenry these rights in the future?? 

 

I'm not saying that training isn't required. It should be part of the educational curriculum in our schools!!  Even the most adamant anti-gun persons should know how to properly handle and fire a gun!!  Ignorance is FAR more dangerous than ANYTHING else that you can name!! Once a person is taught the causes, effects, capabilities, and consequences of gun use and ownership, they are more capable of making an intelligent and informed decision for themselves. This should be part of our health education, the same as "sex education" and  the mostly abandoned driver education that we've had in our schools in the past!!

 

You are NOT Constitutionally guaranteed freedom from fear!!  Your fears are your own!!  My right to protect myself IS Constitutionally guaranteed!!  So long as I do no harm to others save those attempting to do me harm, I shouldn't have to face "regulation" from the government to do so!!!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

BUT!!! You are responsible for the damage or injuries that occur!!! 

 

That is faint comfort to the person lying in the ground because they didn't know not do what anyone would know with basic training.  

 

I am sorry,  we all take training to make sure we know what we are doing and it is often required training. 

Share this post


Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.