Would you support Required Testing?

[Pami]

Moved the property rights discussion to this new thread: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...12765-right_to_carry_on_private_property.html

Please continue the required testing discussion here; continue the property rights discussion in the above thread.

Thanks!

 

[VN Vet]

I think a Certified Training Course is a good thing. Kentucky requires it. Not a big deal. Even the most experienced person will learn something from taking the training.

I took a class in Kentuck and then a few weeks ago here in Indiana. I took my nephew with me to the Indiana Class. I have been shooting since I was very young. I am military trained and I learned a thing or three at these classes. The NRA has manyl levels of training classes and I plan on taking each one.

 

[VN Vet]

We are a Republic. A Nation that is premised on Laws and not the decree of Man.
Democracy comes into play when We the People can argue freely and friendly on topics such as this. We then vote and the majority wins. This is what makes this County Great and keeps us FREE.

If we do not like the proposed Laws, We the People should Vote NO. In a Republic like ours, we elect the people to represent us. If they vote to the contrary of We the People then We the People must elect the people who will.

I love this Country. I hope all of you can tell that.

 

[dburkhead]

We are a Republic. A Nation that is premised on Laws and not the decree of Man.
Democracy comes into play when We the People can argue freely and friendly on topics such as this. We then vote and the majority wins. This is what makes this County Great and keeps us FREE.

If we do not like the proposed Laws, We the People should Vote NO. In a Republic like ours, we elect the people to represent us. If they vote to the contrary of We the People then We the People must elect the people who will.

I love this Country. I hope all of you can tell that.

We also have a Constitution that limits what "the people" and their elected representatives are permitted to do to avoid the "tyranny of the majority."

Among other things that Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." While, even within that the Constitution allows for certain restrictions (notably via the "due process" clause of the 5th Amendment--whereby one can lose life, liberty, and/or property), it's truly amazing how much infringement people are willing to justify by calling it "common sense" or "reasonable" and still tell themselves they are not violating either the spirit or the letter of the 2nd Amendment.

Training is a good idea. I don't think anyone here has ever said otherwise. Mandating training is just one more body part of the camel inside the tent (and there's very little room left for the human in that tent as it is).

I will oppose adding restrictions to the Right to Keep and Bear arms with every fiber of my being. So unless some training requirement were coming with a reduction in restrictions elsewhere that are at least on par with it (i.e. a true compromise), then no thank you.

 

[VN Vet]

dburkhead said "We also have a Constitution that limits what "the people" and their elected representatives are permitted to do to avoid the "tyranny of the majority."

YES! He is right. I wish I'd added this statement to my post. Oh well, I ain't purfeck.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think a Certified Training Course is a good thing. Kentucky requires it. Not a big deal. Even the most experienced person will learn something from taking the training.

I took a class in Kentuck and then a few weeks ago here in Indiana. I took my nephew with me to the Indiana Class. I have been shooting since I was very young. I am military trained and I learned a thing or three at these classes. The NRA has manyl levels of training classes and I plan on taking each one.

(I think I said this here before, but at the moment, I'm being too lazy to go back and look to see.)
I applaud your taking those classes. More training is almost always a good thing. I should add that you went and did this without any legal mandate that you do so. Why then, should a law be necessary to force it? (not saying you said it should)

Our present-day law provides for a lifetime LTCH. Once issued as such, I don't think that further conditions can be placed on the maintaining of it in a valid condition, other than as provided: must be a "proper person". With that in mind, those who have the LTCH who agree with mandatory testing are either requesting laws to apply unnecessarily (since they already have training) or are hypocritically requesting laws to apply to those who come after them, but expect to be "grandfathered" in themselves. Those who do not have a LTCH have no dog in this fight either, for they will be one of two groups as well: Those who have yet to apply and are of a mind to seek out training on their own or those who have no intention of ever being LTCH holders and only want to throw obstacles in the path of those who would.

Blessings,
B

 

[jeremy]

I will support required training only under two conditions.
First, we require some form of testing to allow people to reproduce.
Second, we require testing and training before people are allowed to talk.

 

[turnandshoot4]

+1!!!

 

[jeremy]

Once in awhile I come up with some good stuff. Not so often, but when I do watch out... LOL

 

[inFALable]

Testing only if it followed Alaska's reasoning. I shouldn't have to test to use my rights.

 

[agentl074]

Heres the delima: Your drivers license is a PRIVILEGE - your LTCH is your RIGHT... Now I find this odd Now I suppose if we all took "tests" to receive our rights - it would be ok lol.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Heres the delima: Your drivers license is a PRIVILEGE - your LTCH is your RIGHT... Now I find this odd Now I suppose if we all took "tests" to receive our rights - it would be ok lol.

Not quite. Your right to carry is your right. Your LTCH, since you have to pay to receive it, is a privilege that you've accepted in exchange for your right. No need to get defensive in response to that; I did it, too, as did many if not all of our members. The point is that the law that made getting a LTCH mandatory to be allowed to carry is unConstitutional, and no one challenged it. Now it is precedent, and I doubt we'll find a court to overturn it. (same reasoning they used when confirming the IRS's authority.)

And yes, I think it's a crock of .

Blessings,
B

 

[elaw555]

From John Lott, taken from this website Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality, By Sarah Thompson, M.D.

The truth is that he's statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn't legally carry a firearm and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.

More likely to be shot by a law enforcement officer with required training then by a legal gun owner with no required training.

 

[agentl074]

Not quite. Your right to carry is your right. Your LTCH, since you have to pay to receive it, is a privilege that you've accepted in exchange for your right. No need to get defensive in response to that; I did it, too, as did many if not all of our members. The point is that the law that made getting a LTCH mandatory to be allowed to carry is unConstitutional, and no one challenged it. Now it is precedent, and I doubt we'll find a court to overturn it. (same reasoning they used when confirming the IRS's authority.)

And yes, I think it's a crock of .

Blessings,
B

Thats actually what I meant. I was referring to our right - in accordance with Article I Section 32 - of the Indiana Constitution.

 

[mac46567@aol.com]

Better yet write or call your congressman and tell them to support house bill H.R. 197 National right to carry!

This legislation will allow a person with a state issued permit carry privilages in all 50 states.

Including good old Illinois and Wisconsin!

 

[9rows]

Not just NO, But OH HELL NO!

Personally I think I should not need a little piece of paper to exercise my GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. ANYWHERE! Airport, courthouse, park school, wherever be damned.

I did not read this whole thread, but +1 to "jeremy".

Not only should "testing" NOT be required, I believe Indiana's current requirement to obtain a license to carry a handgun is unconstitutional.

"...to keep and bear Arms". Sure, you can keep one ... just make sure and clear it with the state if you want to "bear" one. Ridiculous.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

yes no problem with testing. I work close to Gary and know several male employees that are convicted felons that get their girlfriends and wives to get a LTCH so they can put the gun in a legal hand if stopped. If they had to pass a simple firearms training test it would eliminate that.

Couldn't they just pass the test?

 

[finity]

NECRO!!!

 

[Specialized]

I understand the rights perspective to this question, but I support mandatory training and testing to get a license for the same reason I do for driving -- both tools are dangerous in untrained hands, and a minimal level of proficiency and knowledge of the laws are necessary in order to responsibly use them. The rest of it pales in the face of common sense. Just my opinion; your mileage may vary.

Specialized

 

[aikidoka]

No testing unless it is freakin free, including the ammo. My fiance doesnt have her cc license in KY because she can't afford the required class and ammo cost. Testing, unless free, creates a barrier for too many.