Skills Check: CCW Qualification

[jumpinjoe]

Guys, I'm going to post my opinion to several previous posts all here in just one so bear with me.

1st - Any requirement, restriction, fee, or anything else that is 'REQUIRED' in order to exercise a right, is an "Infringement" on that right. That's exactly the difference between a 'RIGHT' and a "PRIVILEGE'. The question is then, just how much an infringement we are willing to allow or will accept. We all have opinions on that question, and the Ben Franklin quote is very appropriate. Paraphrased it's something like this ... "Anyone willing to sacrifice even an ounce of freedom for a pound of safety deserves neither".
2nd - Another very appropriate quote, although I don't know who to credit it to, is this.... "Our constitution GUARANTEES our FREEDOM, not our SAFETY!" Don't misunderstand me, I'm not at all opposed to people being well trained (which btw has absolutely nothing to do with a 'well regulated' militia) and encourage it at every opportunity. I just won't accept that it be forced on anyone in order for them to exercise a 'god given' right.

As to the question of the misinformed issue of a "Well Regulated Militia", I'll provide this very clear explanation of that whole misunderstood line in the 2nd amendment. I'm no English grammar expert, but I have seen the entire sentence broken down into it's grammatical parts (diagramming).
The first part addressing the 'militia' is only describing the function of the remainder of the sentence, not a requirement. That's not the correct wording/titles, but I've already admitted I'm no grammar expert.

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment

From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only 'not' the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was 'precisely to render the government powerless to do so' that the founders wrote it.


http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

 

[jumpinjoe]

"........................."
To take out in public, however? There should be some basic standard of training, even if it only includes the Four Basic Rules, one mag's worth of target shots, and a pamphlet describing the legal repercussions of using a firearm to defend yourself.
All of this is yet another argument for a FEDERAL carry permit, as opposed to state permits. ".................................."
(emphasis are mine)

Pegleg, I would not argue with anything you've said here because I'm pretty sure I understand the intent with which you said it........
When you say "To take out in public, however?" implying that is when folks should be required to have some amount of training is exactly what CCW is all about. On one's own property there is little chance of needing an act of self defense. It's when 'off' your property and in 'public' when the chances of needing it are increased. I would offer that only when you carry onto someone else's property is when (if any) a training requirement would come into play. I've already explained how I think any 'requirement' to exercise a RIGHT is an infringement on that right, but I accept that my right ends at another's property.

And when you said "All of this is yet another argument for a FEDERAL carry permit". I couldn't agree any more except to say we already have a 'Federal' permit ..... it's called the 2nd amendment. According to that one sentence no American citizen should be restricted in any way or at anytime from 'bearing' arms, with possible exception of when we enter another's private property.

However, over time, primarily beginning in 1934, (and a few cowboy towns where you had to check your gun) we citizens have allowed and settled for many restrictions (infringements) to our 2nd amendment right. We've settled for some due to real or imagined societal progress based on that restriction (ex: no guns for convicted felons, drug abusers, mentally incompetent, etc), some due to perceived immediate gratification (ex: no full automatics without much paperwork and high fees) , some due simply to 'feel good' legislation (ex: no high cap mags, no arms inside gov't bldgs, no guns on school grounds, etc) and yes, some even literally forced on us by others with no recourse. Most of these I've mentioned, we/some accepted them in the spirit of a safe/safer society, some we literally had no opportunity to resist.

So again, let me say I have no argument with any of your intention. My post is only to reinforce your line thinking, or to offer another simple point of view.

 

[David N.]

Oklahoma is a "Constitutional Carry" state. The only training requirement is for concealed carry licensing.

I believe it is an individual responsibility to pursue training on safe gun handling and employment, and not a responsibility of Government to dictate.

 

[BET7]

Oklahoma is a "Constitutional Carry" state. The only training requirement is for concealed carry licensing.

I believe it is an individual responsibility to pursue training on safe gun handling and employment, and not a responsibility of Government to dictate.

Same in Pa. Apply for the permit listing two references, after successfully background check, pay the application fee & that’s it. When I applied for the out of State Utah carry permit, besides the fee, I was fingerprinted for FBI background check & required to take a 4 hour safety class taught by a certified instructor.

 

[jumpinjoe]

Here's a link to a great explanation of 'diagramming' the 2nd amendment. Even addresses the use of 'comma's'.

Sentence-Diagramming the Second Amendment

The political drama over guns may not be over yet. This week, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) announced his intention to re-introduce his failed...

baseballot.blogspot.com

And here's a link to a really good explanation as to how it got to the final wording it is today .......

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And here's what it says .......

Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights


James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[123]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[124] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[125] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[126]

In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before "shall not be infringed" and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[127]

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States".[128] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[129]

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. A motion passed to replace the words "the best", and insert in lieu thereof "necessary to the" .[130] The Senate then slightly modified the language to read as the fourth article and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version by the Senate was amended to read as:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate.

The enrolled original Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, on permanent display in the Rotunda, reads as:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[131]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states, having been ratified as a group by all the fourteen states then in existence except Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Georgia – which added ratifications in 1939.

 

[David N.]

I don't know how we got here, but this is good information.

Some folks are misinformed to think that the Government granted these bill of rights. Instead, We the People guaranteed these rights and placed restrictions on Government. I read a scholar state the the United States Constitution serves two purposes, one of which is to restrict Government and the other is to protect the rights of the people.

 

[jumpinjoe]

I don't know how we got here, but this is good information.

Some folks are misinformed to think that the Government granted these bill of rights. Instead, We the People guaranteed these rights and placed restrictions on Government. I read a scholar state the the United States Constitution serves two purposes, one of which is to restrict Government and the other is to protect the rights of the people.

Well, THERE 'YA GO !!!!!

 

[papa]

Same in Pa. Apply for the permit listing two references, after successfully background check, pay the application fee & that’s it. When I applied for the out of State Utah carry permit, besides the fee, I was fingerprinted for FBI background check & required to take a 4 hour safety class taught by a certified instructor.

Being as I am from Illinois , my very first carry license was in Jan. 2008 from Centre Co. , PA. and the sheriff was Denny Nau. A couple years later I took the course , got finger printed , and got my Utah license.

2014 when we got to apply for Illinois FCCL ( firearms concealed carry license ) I was one of the first 300 to get mine in my county.

 

[jumpinjoe]

Being as I am from Illinois , my very first carry license was in Jan. 2008 from Centre Co. , PA. and the sheriff was Denny Nau. A couple years later I took the course , got finger printed , and got my Utah license.

2014 when we got to apply for Illinois FCCL ( firearms concealed carry license ) I was one of the first 300 to get mine in my county.

Like the final outcome for you papa ..... just hate you had to jump through all the hoops!

 

[BET7]

Good video from Gun Talk concerning "Training Talk & Choosing a Gun" discussion, which in Louisiana apparently requires mandatory training to get a new or renewed Concealed Carry Permit. They talk with certified instructor "Barret Kendrick" on some experiences he's had with new gun owners, during his training classes. Video is 33 minutes in length and was interesting to watch if you have the time to spare.