Would you support Required Testing?

[melensdad]

I'm still waiting for someone to show me that Indiana, with no required testing, is somehow more dangerous than New Mexico, Utah, Florida, etc etc that require testing! What FACTS show that people who carry in Indiana are more dangerous? If they are, then is it also true in New Hampshire, Alaska and the other states that do not require testing?

I think testing is just a 'feel good' political trick and a roadblock to honest citizens by upping the entry cost beyond the means of some of the poor, who, in reality need guns for protection far more often than the rich.

NO REQUIRED TESTING. Period. That is easy to understand and there seem to be no facts that show required testing achieves anything other than to lower the number of permits issued in some of the states.

 

[techres]

Nope. I would support removing the LTCH all together and letting people carry at will.

 

[Dogman]

Nope. I would support removing the LTCH all together and letting people carry at will.

OMG, then that would be like a----Right!

Would be nice.

 

[dburkhead]

Nope. I would support removing the LTCH all together and letting people carry at will.

Vermont carry. That would make too much sense.

I'm also told that's Alaska's policy as well. It's just that Alaska also allows one to get a carry permit for reciprocity purposes.

If that's correct then the Brady Bunch screwed up in giving Alaska the 2 points for licenses for carrying.

 

[dburkhead]

OMG, then that would be like a----Right!

Would be nice.

 

[SavageEagle]

And, as has been asked before, what other rights do you support testing before being allowed to exercise them? Voting? Free speech? How about religion?

Mandatory testing and training, quite frankly, accomplishes nothing. When it comes to accidental injuries/deaths from firearms, the rate is already so low that the difference that might result from mandatory training or the lack thereof is lost in the statistical noise. You can see some of that in my post uptopic where I cite figures from an anti-gun site (which, if anything, would be biased in favor of restriction) for accidental deaths of minors from gun wounds.

Incidentally, it's not 5 other states that Recognize an Indiana license but 21. A good number of those that don't recognize Indiana's don't recognize anyone's. The UT and FL non-resident license only add a handful of states to that. An interesting tidbit, but both of those states do recognize Indiana's license. You don't need to get the license with mandatory testing from Florida or Utah to carry in either Florida or Utah (unless you're a Florida resident).

And how many people from Indiana is it, really who get the Florida or Utah license? You hear about ones who do, but don't hear about the ones who don't.

Here's a touchstone to determine if a person really thinks "mandatory training/testing" would be a good thing for gun owners or a bad thing: how do they respond when you suggest they make gun safety education a part of the public school curriculum? If they object, then you've just found someone whose interest is in putting obstacles to gun ownership, not in "gun safety." Those people are not your friend, and one should really think long and hard before taking advice from one who means you harm.

To clarify, I know that it's not just 5 other states. But there are 5 states about to not recognize our license because we don't have training. Hence my debate within myself. The guy I was talking about is not in the gun buisness to make money. He's there to help guys like us get the guns we want and need. He works with anyone as much as he can. And trust me, some people like those that walk in, fondle a glock and start "pretending" to gangsta tilt and shoot people have no buisness carrying a gun as they see it as a toy. Look, I'm not for testing requirements. But how do we draw a line for those who shouldn't own or carry? Limit just Felons? Limit those who shouldn't be carrying? Some of our kids are very capable of handling firearms safely. So should we lower the Age Limit on Carry to 9? 6?

What if we didn't have any requirements on who could be a President? Anyone, any age, no matter of criminal history or what not? How about letting anyone walk up to anyone and slander and put down anyone regardless of truth? There must be some sort of rules on arms, but where should the line be morally drawn? We can't just allow everyone to just carry willy nilly.... OR CAN WE?

One guy was talking today that criminals will have guns. Period. Nothing we can do about it unless we catch them. Just let us have a level playing field. Same when it comes to fighting tyranny. We have just as much right to automatic weapons and military issue firearms and explosives as the military does. But do you want an emotional teenager on the brink of suicide with a can of C4 and a full auto m16? There must be lines somewhere, but how big and how far is of much more debate.

 

[dburkhead]

To clarify, I know that it's not just 5 other states. But there are 5 states about to not recognize our license because we don't have training. Hence my debate within myself. The guy I was talking about is not in the gun buisness to make money. He's there to help guys like us get the guns we want and need. He works with anyone as much as he can. And trust me, some people like those that walk in, fondle a glock and start "pretending" to gangsta tilt and shoot people have no buisness carrying a gun as they see it as a toy. Look, I'm not for testing requirements. But how do we draw a line for those who shouldn't own or carry? Limit just Felons? Limit those who shouldn't be carrying? Some of our kids are very capable of handling firearms safely. So should we lower the Age Limit on Carry to 9? 6?

What if we didn't have any requirements on who could be a President? Anyone, any age, no matter of criminal history or what not? How about letting anyone walk up to anyone and slander and put down anyone regardless of truth? There must be some sort of rules on arms, but where should the line be morally drawn? We can't just allow everyone to just carry willy nilly.... OR CAN WE?

One guy was talking today that criminals will have guns. Period. Nothing we can do about it unless we catch them. Just let us have a level playing field. Same when it comes to fighting tyranny. We have just as much right to automatic weapons and military issue firearms and explosives as the military does. But do you want an emotional teenager on the brink of suicide with a can of C4 and a full auto m16? There must be lines somewhere, but how big and how far is of much more debate.

Requirements to be President? US Citizen, age 35.

Issues like Slander/Libel, the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example, etc. come down to the concept of prior restraint. You don't gag someone because they might commit slander, or might shout "fire" inappropriately in a crowded theater.

The Constitution gives the standard where people can be denied the exercise of their rights: it's in the 5th Amendment of the Constitution:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

That's the key right there. A person may be stripped of liberty (including exercise of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms) via "due process of law." I.e. having a court determination that the specific individual unfit, either through criminal activity or mental/emotional incompetence, is unfit to be a fully functioning member of society. It's the same standard which allows a person to be locked up against their will (imprisoned or committed), or even to have their life taken away.

Note that Congress passing a law is insufficient to count as "due process" for this because that would effectively be
passing a law declaring people guilty--a bill of attainder, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution and no amendments have altered that provision.

Until people actually commit the crime (either with intent or though criminal negligence) the government has no legitimate power to restrict them a priori. Mind you, the government has grabbed a lot of power in that respect and getting it back will be a long, difficult road if it's even possible at all, but that's not "legitimate" power.

Jefferson said it best about what legitimate power is in government:

"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 rights 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."

That's the legitimate power of government, neither more nor less. Mind you, those two sentences combine within them a wealth of complexity, but that's a discussion for another day, and another thread.

The key though is that unless you can prove that requiring training serves the purpose of securing "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (and the evidence does not support any such claim) than requiring training does not fall under government's "just powers."

Indiana, in point of fact, along with other states like Alaska and Vermont, are pretty good test cases demonstrating that required training isn't necessary. There is no significant increase in accidental deaths or "bad shootings" than in states requiring training.

People spend entirely too much time worrying about what might happen to look around at what actually is happening. And what is happening is that all the fear-filled claims of the antis are, well, not happening.

The people who will benefit from training will generally get it whether it's required or not. The others might take it when it's required, but don't benefit--they go right back to that "gangsta tilt" and waving the gun around like some magic totem.

 

[SavageEagle]

Due process falls under making laws which the Supreme Court can rule unconstitutional. So if the Congress reinstates the AWB that means due process. Elected officials create a law, people break that law, they lose their right. Whether the law is just or not. Then the Courts decide if it is a just law or not.

If your pursuit of happiness involves owning an AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter then the government has no rights to stop you, true? It should be. By God if I want an Apache and I can afford it they can't stop me. Now if I arm it with Hellfires and 40mm cannon and ammo, is that breaking the law? If it is my pursuit of happiness they can't stop me unless they make laws against it. But what happens when the FCC and ATF, who mind you are not elected officials, make laws against it? Are those laws then unconstitutional because they weren't voted on Democraticly? There is so much left unsaid and undefined in our constitution and that's how these gun grabbers are able to take our guns. So are you going to take up arms against them and change the things that you know are wrong that they refuse to change?

Eh, I'm with you either way. It's BS and they can't do these things to us but they are. So my question goes unanswered. How do we change things?

 

[dburkhead]

Due process falls under making laws which the Supreme Court can rule unconstitutional. So if the Congress reinstates the AWB that means due process. Elected officials create a law, people break that law, they lose their right. Whether the law is just or not. Then the Courts decide if it is a just law or not.

If your pursuit of happiness involves owning an AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter then the government has no rights to stop you, true? It should be. By God if I want an Apache and I can afford it they can't stop me. Now if I arm it with Hellfires and 40mm cannon and ammo, is that breaking the law? If it is my pursuit of happiness they can't stop me unless they make laws against it. But what happens when the FCC and ATF, who mind you are not elected officials, make laws against it? Are those laws then unconstitutional because they weren't voted on Democraticly? There is so much left unsaid and undefined in our constitution and that's how these gun grabbers are able to take our guns. So are you going to take up arms against them and change the things that you know are wrong that they refuse to change?

Eh, I'm with you either way. It's BS and they can't do these things to us but they are. So my question goes unanswered. How do we change things?

Congress passing laws, Constitutional or not, is not due process and never has been. "Due process" is the process of being tried in the courts. When one is charged with a crime, the process of trial, conviction, acquittal or mistrial, appeals, sentencing, etc. is "due process."

Definitions:
Merriam Webster
BusinessDictionary.com - Online Business Dictionary
Wikipedia
The Free Dictionary Online
Black's Law Dictionary (about the 3rd entry in the web page)

Note that simply passing a law, even having that law vetted by Congress, does not constitute "due process." It's the individual trial of the accused, with the accused given notice and allowed to argue his case that makes for due process.

And it is only through due process that the government may take away life or liberty (per the Constitution). For property there is also the matter of "eminent domain" as well as due process.

BTW, "pursuit of happiness" is no guarantee of achieving it.

As for that Helicopter. Yep. Just like private individuals were able to own armed warships at the time of the Constitution (and Congress was given the power to authorize those individuals to make war on the US's enemies through the means of Letters of Marque and Reprisal), by the plain words of the Constitution, that Apache Gunship should be legal.

As for the regulations of the FCC, ATF, etc, having force of law, I see nowhere in the Constitution where Congress is given the power to delegate its legislative power, so those laws are not Constitutional. Unfortunately, the courts at this time disagree, so there we are.

As for taking up arms--well, it hasn't gotten that bad yet. However, I am working were I can to roll back the infringements on individual liberty that have taken the US so far away from being a "free country" anymore.

If it does, however, get that bad, well, Jefferson went on to say:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

There's been a lot of "disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable" but one wonders where the final straw is likely to be.

 

[SavageEagle]

I love these discussions. i always learn something and I thank you for that. Sometimes I must argue a point and ask stupid questions to get the right answers or at least answers I can understand. So if I hit a nerve with anyone, Im sorry. My intentions are only to learn, not to anger. So thank you for the enlightenment sir, you have my upmost respect.

 

[singlestacksig]

Idecided, like they are debating now, to not honor our permit? Do we just not leave Indiana or do we go cross Country unarmed? It's a very good debate. Yes it is unconstitutional for us to even be required to have a Permit or License, but that's how it is right now and it's hard enough to change that in our own state let alone other states across the Country. As it stands Gun Owners in this Country are not the Majority although we are close.

Those of us who are sooooo against required training, why do you give in and take the courses to get the Utah or Florida permit? Why give in to those who mean us harm however good intentioned it may be? I'm not all for required training but some people need it and are not willing to get it. Even if they do, how much of that training will the retain 10yrs later? A year? A month? A day? I have no solutions. I guess i do but those are better not discussed on an open public online forum. I guess my point is that there are good points to required safety training and bad points. Where do we as citizens draw the line? When do we stand up and say enough is enough? When they come knocking on your door wanting your guns? Not me, no sir. But one of us, ten of us, a hundred of us won't stop anything. ALL gun owners have to come together on this type of thing. The NRA has been trying for years. So how do we accomplish unified results?

I think you are mis understanding or dismissing to many issues..
First off the USA is made up of 50 seperate states, there are several laws & rights that change from state to state.
The state of Indiana's constitution states the people have the right to bear arms for self defense. this is very clear. not confused words like the US constitution.
once Indiana has checked that a person is not a felon, then the states job is done.
It does not matter what residents of other states think we should do..
If an individual chooses to meet the requirments of laws of another state, that is up to them.. it is between that state and the individual, Indiana is not involved nor should it be..

You have good intentions, but that is all they are.. the truth is defesive use of a gun is a lot more than pulling a trigger.. so there are many more real life defensive uses of a handgun that never result in them being reported...
and in all of the USA defensive firings of a handgun that result in a 'by stander' being injured are so statistically rare that you can not really compare it to other risks..

more people have died from motorcycle injuries in the past month, in Indiana, than by stander injuries of handgun (lawful) use in all of the USA.

 

[dclaarjr]

I'm from Ohio, but after reading through all of this I would like to add my .

I used to be against any training, but my views have changed a little.

First let's get rid of what you think the course in Oh is all about. It is 12 hours long. The first 10 are classroom and starts with the basic NRA this is a gun and this is how you use it safely course. The rest of the classroom time is spent explaining Ohio's carry laws with emphasis on what is legally a defensive shooting, where you can and can't carry, and vehicle transport laws (this last is where Ohio really sucks). The final 2 hours is spent on the range. The student is taught how to safely handle the firearm and basic marksmanship skills, and given a little time to practice.

Now, I am training to be an instructor. I have seen some of these people who show up for the course, who know absolutely nothing. I have seen people who couldn't even load a magazine, let alone keep a gun pointed in a safe direction. Some of them are down right scary, even though they have no malicious intent.

Like my training counselor told me. We are not going to make a marksman out of anyone. What we are doing is giving out enough information to help keep someone out of trouble because they didn't know a law. We are also trying to give enough training so the students can handle a loaded gun without accidentally shooting themselves or others.

After seeing what I have I believe that some basic level of training should be necessary to be able to carry in public. I still believe that anyone should be able to own and keep a gun in their home at their discretion whether they have training or not.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Vermont carry. That would make too much sense.

I'm also told that's Alaska's policy as well. It's just that Alaska also allows one to get a carry permit for reciprocity purposes.

If that's correct then the Brady Bunch screwed up in giving Alaska the 2 points for licenses for carrying.

VT and AK both still have Victim Disarmament Zones/Criminal Protection Zones. The true right would involve none of these.

FWIW, Montana is never discussed in these interactions, and I'm told that they require a CCW only in the cities. (This came to me in an email I had on an account that doesn't exist anymore. I don't have the man's name, but I can probably get it re-verified if need be.)

ETA: The Brady Bunch also screwed up on IN: We do have Castle Doctrine, which is what they refer to as a "shoot first law". We should have only been assessed six demerits, not eight.



Blessings,
B

 

[Coach]

I'm from Ohio, but after reading through all of this I would like to add my .

I used to be against any training, but my views have changed a little.

First let's get rid of what you think the course in Oh is all about. It is 12 hours long. The first 10 are classroom and starts with the basic NRA this is a gun and this is how you use it safely course. The rest of the classroom time is spent explaining Ohio's carry laws with emphasis on what is legally a defensive shooting, where you can and can't carry, and vehicle transport laws (this last is where Ohio really sucks). The final 2 hours is spent on the range. The student is taught how to safely handle the firearm and basic marksmanship skills, and given a little time to practice.

Now, I am training to be an instructor. I have seen some of these people who show up for the course, who know absolutely nothing. I have seen people who couldn't even load a magazine, let alone keep a gun pointed in a safe direction. Some of them are down right scary, even though they have no malicious intent.

Like my training counselor told me. We are not going to make a marksman out of anyone. What we are doing is giving out enough information to help keep someone out of trouble because they didn't know a law. We are also trying to give enough training so the students can handle a loaded gun without accidentally shooting themselves or others.

After seeing what I have I believe that some basic level of training should be necessary to be able to carry in public. I still believe that anyone should be able to own and keep a gun in their home at their discretion whether they have training or not.

Congratulations on being rational and reasonable and not see liberty robbing government behind every tree and rock. You and I have obviously missed the point. The point as having been read on this forum this thread and others:

The Right to Bear Arms is Universal and GOD given. Anything short of carrying anytime I want or anywhere I want are infringements upon my rights. I have no obligation to be competent, responisble or demonstrate and common sense what so ever. Because I have a God given right. I should not have to show that I can hit a bad guy with bullets and not the good guys. Why do I need to know the law? I told you it was a God given right. After all it was scribbled down on the back of the stone tablets brought down from the Mt. by Moses. Come on people see the light!!!
Just because someone has been in jail for a felony that is no reason they cannot now own a gun. The govt has no authority to take liberty away from someone, because we are talking about God given rights.

 

[jeremy]

If you want required testing make it a class at school. Taught and required every year from freshman to senior.

 

[dburkhead]

Congratulations on being rational and reasonable and not see liberty robbing government behind every tree and rock. You and I have obviously missed the point. The point as having been read on this forum this thread and others:

The Right to Bear Arms is Universal and GOD given. Anything short of carrying anytime I want or anywhere I want are infringements upon my rights. I have no obligation to be competent, responisble or demonstrate and common sense what so ever. Because I have a God given right. I should not have to show that I can hit a bad guy with bullets and not the good guys. Why do I need to know the law? I told you it was a God given right. After all it was scribbled down on the back of the stone tablets brought down from the Mt. by Moses. Come on people see the light!!!
Just because someone has been in jail for a felony that is no reason they cannot now own a gun. The govt has no authority to take liberty away from someone, because we are talking about God given rights.

Straw man. That is not what people have been saying. Note that I specifically addressed the issue of felons and the mentally incompetent (losing liberty via due process) and the only disagreement was someone's misinterpretation of what exactly constitutes "due process."

Likewise, nobody has suggested that training isn't a good thing. The objection has been to the State requiring it.

The arguments in favor of required testing all point to the things people might do while the arguments against it are based on what has actually been happening: incidence of accidents with guns simply isn't that different between Indiana that doesn't have a training requirement and other States which do, and what difference there is is down in the "Statistical noise", IOW, for all practical purposes there is none.

There are two groups that are a large part of the reason for the "no effect on accident rates" results:

1) folk who would get training anyway, regardless of whether or not it's mandatory.

2) folk who won't benefit from the training. i.e. folk whose practices, habits, attitudes, etc. won't be changed by a short handgun course.

It's the habit aspect that makes the short required courses so largely useless. People go through the course, then fall right back into the habits they had before the course. Building new habits takes time and ongoing effort.

The predictions keep being made of horrible things that will happen without the mandatory training. Well, in Indiana we don't have mandatory training and those horrible things aren't happening. It's really just another form of the "blood will run in the streets" arguments that the antis use whenever reducing restrictions on RKBA is brought up. And, like it, it keeps failing to happen.

 

[melensdad]

The arguments in favor of required testing all point to the things people might do while the arguments against it are based on what has actually been happening: incidence of accidents with guns simply isn't that different between Indiana that doesn't have a training requirement and other States which do, and what difference there is is down in the "Statistical noise", IOW, for all practical purposes there is none.

I would love to see that data because I cannot find any data saying that accidents involving legal carry in states like Indiana are actually any different than in states that require training (like Utah, NM, Florida, etc).

 

[dburkhead]

I would love to see that data because I cannot find any data saying that accidents involving legal carry in states like Indiana are actually any different than in states that require training (like Utah, NM, Florida, etc).

I posted some stats for Indiana and some other States on page 11 of this thread. The figures were for number of children (actually through age 19) accidentally shot and killed both raw numbers, per 100,000 of total population, and per 100,000 of minors (latter two courtesy of population figures from the US census. Census data did not have age 0-19 only 0-18 so I used that as a proxy since it is unlikely that the percentage of 19 year olds varies significantly from the percentage of minors, the rankings should be the same.). At least one State with a test/training requirement (WV) had higher accident rates and Indiana but even that isn't really significant. There are too many other variables, not controlled, that can affect those rates.

As it stands, the rates aren't just for handguns or carry of handguns. They include things like hunting accidents and accidents at home. But even with all those "extras" the chance that a given child, sometime before they reach the age of 20, will die due to accidental gunshot is on the order of 3 or 4 in a million.

There are far more serious things to worry about.

 

[indyjoe]

I agree about the too many variables. And these stats include all gun owners, not just LTCH gun owners. It truly is a hard thing to find data for, which is why people change back to their belief of the situation, which is always skewed.

 

[dburkhead]

I agree about the too many variables. And these stats include all gun owners, not just LTCH gun owners. It truly is a hard thing to find data for, which is why people change back to their belief of the situation, which is always skewed.

The thing is, the rate of accidental shootings is so small that it puts a pretty severe upper bound on the possible effect of adding any training requirement.