Police comment on constitutional carry

[georg jetson]

I personally feel there should be some requirement for training. more than the required 40 rounds that I was required to fire in order to submit for my concealed weapons permit. We have to have drivers ed in many cities before we are allowed to drive.

However, if they mandated training beforehand, somebody would just be making extra money at our expense. Maybe we should just have handgun safety in highschool along with drivers ed. For those in the rural communities they could combine the two courses and teach hunting from the confort of your 4X4

Michael

I personally feel that you have no idea why we have the unconstitutional laws that exist now.

Who would require the training? The government? I bet you even wonder how government has gotten so big.

 

[solus]

snippp...

Who would require the training? The government? I bet you even wonder how government has gotten so big.

Actually, taken completely at face value, the director's words are very sage. It IS a bad idea for people to carry weapons without having received appropriate training. We all believe that training and safety are crucial.

snip... that government should mandate such training, that rights should suffer prior restraint, that causes our disagreement. I trust we are all very supportive of being well trained in safe handling, proper use, marksmanship, and even the legal aspects of carrying and using a gun. snipp

Charles

If there is any member of this forum who actually thinks training is a bad idea, let him say so directly. Those who are contrary and argumentative simply for the sake of being difficult do not merit my concern.

georg...might cut perbast a break as the bloke from UT quoted above, publicly & as well as unequivocally stated "WE" (read as speaking for the collective of all the OCDO forum members) believe training is necessary before citizens receive carry weapons.


for the record georg, if you check i stated in a follow-up rebuttal post that the good bloke from UT didn't speak or express opinions for this gentle soul on this public forum.


unfortunately, as you can see from his last post quoted above, I also caught grief in a his follow-up post from the good mate from UT when i stated i directly do not want you to speak for me and then he reiterated his mandatory training sentiment again.

so...there ya have it one individual spoke for the whole forum and now there are shades of those who don't want mandatory training

ipse

 

[OC for ME]

... He simply assumes the personal liability of carrying a gun without having had that training. ...

What liability should we be relieved of if we are "properly" trained?

 

[solus]

What liability should we be relieved of if we are "properly" trained?

trained or not trained...sorry what liability does a OC'r incur per se, let alone have to seek relief from?

sooo...if, in a SD incident, my know homeowner's isn't going to contribute anything, nada, to any juridical or civil proceedings resulting from any errors in judgement (not enough training in the world can mitigate those miscalculations) nor will the secondary policies sold....so why not provide immunity such as the nice LEs are afforded unless the event is egregious, then the individual loses their immunity and goes to jail.

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

What liability should we be relieved of if we are "properly" trained?

Obviously this isn't a matter of "should" but simply of "being".

Proper training relieves a man of the liability of being ignorant and/or incompetent.

 

[OC for ME]

Obviously this isn't a matter of "should" but simply of "being".

Proper training relieves a man of the liability of being ignorant and/or incompetent.

Which man, private citizen or public servant?

 

[utbagpiper]

Which man, private citizen or public servant?

Clearly, everyone benefits from proper training.

Why do you ask?

Perhaps you'd care to have a full, frank discussion, rather than continuing to ask what might be seen as potentially loaded questions.

Charles

 

[solus]

Obviously this isn't a matter of "should" but simply of "being".

Proper training relieves a man of the liability of being ignorant and/or incompetent.

So pray tell and by the love of a higher being...who is going to judicially pursue a citizen's ignorance or incompetence on only those merits??

ipse

added...btw mate, can you define 'proper' and who is going to discern said standards for the 'proper' training.

 

[utbagpiper]

...who is going to judicially pursue a citizen's ignorance or incompetence on only those merits??
...

can you define 'proper' and who is going to discern said standards for the 'proper' training.

I can only explain it to you. I cannot understand it for you.

But if someone thinks I'm referring to some legal requirement to get training, or some legal liability if you don't have a piece of paper from someone, then that someone either lacks the reading comprehension to grasp what I've very clearly written in this thread regarding prior restraint on constitutional rights, or that someone is being disingenuous and trying to foment disagreement just for the sake of being disagreeable.

Some folks need to stop the games and thinly veiled personal attacks. This includes the on-going personal attacks of addressing me in a way you know offends me and that I've politely and repeatedly asked you to avoid. If you refuse to behave civilly, there is no reason I should engage you at all.

Charles

 

[solus]

I can only explain it to you. I cannot understand it for you.

But if someone thinks I'm referring to some legal requirement to get training, or some legal liability if you don't have a piece of paper from someone, then that someone either lacks the reading comprehension to grasp what I've very clearly written in this thread regarding prior restraint on constitutional rights, or that someone is being disingenuous and trying to foment disagreement just for the sake of being disagreeable.

Some folks need to stop the games and thinly veiled personal attacks. This includes the on-going personal attacks of addressing me in a way you know offends me and that I've politely and repeatedly asked you to avoid. If you refuse to behave civilly, there is no reason I should engage you at all.

Charles

mate, sorry you have steadfastly stated (paraphrasing your comments:
1) "WE" all believe training is necessary for citizens to have firearms they carry.
2) If there is any member of this forum who actually thinks training is a bad idea....
3) Society has as much interest in making sure its members are properly trained in firearms....
4) He simply assumes the personal liability of carrying a gun without having had that training.

actually not quite sure what to think from your ambiguous statements about mandatory training is necessary before carrying a firearm or your other statement about assuming personal liability...

i am truly sorry you believe my reading comprehension is sub par and that you believe i have been augmentative; but really charles, you made those training & liability statements and i have asked qualifying questions about:
1) what standard(s) is your mandatory firearm training going to cover ~ just pistol or include rifle & shotgun, especially since you mentioned hunter safety but what about NFA firearms?
2) who is going to oversee your mandatory firearm training is accomplished and so forth?
3) who is going to fund such mandatory firearm training for this society's citizens?
4) sorry, you still haven't articulated your use of the term of personal liability in relation to this society's citizen carrying a firearm w/o training
5) sorry, you failed to articulate your new use of a citizen's personal liability against to current standards of this society's citizen carrying a firearm w/ & w/o training.

now mate, how is my commentary in this post or previously stated posts on this subject in this thread argumentative, didn't call you a cheat, liar, wrong, or ...

just looking for good olde fashion clarification, especially since you in your position as the royal WE, brought the subject up.

ya'll take care now, ya hear.

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

mate,

Again, I am NOT your "mate". Stop addressing me as such.

sorry

Pathetic, or perhaps dotty are the words I would use politely to describe you. But if you prefer to describe yourself as "sorry" I can go with that as well.

you have steadfastly stated (paraphrasing your comments:

There is a reason that the oath in court is to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

My initial post (#7) in this thread also very clearly stated:

Where I suspect Mr. Winter parts company with this group is whether such training should be mandatory or otherwise a prerequisite to legally exercising one's rights to KBA. It is the implicit, contextual claim that government should mandate such training, that rights should suffer prior restraint, that causes our disagreement. I trust we are all very supportive of being well trained in safe handling, proper use, marksmanship, and even the legal aspects of carrying and using a gun. We just don't think good ideas should be mandated prior to being able to exercise rights.

It was to this post that you responded, not with anything materially beneficial, but only to get argumentative. To leave that post off your list is to lie via omission.

To anyone with a middle-school-level or better reading comprehension, it is obvious that I object to any notion of mandatory training, while also being very much in support of the prudence of voluntarily obtaining that level of training appropriate to an individual's situation.

Now, anyone who claims that my intention wasn't clear from this initial, and subsequent posts in this thread, is either an ignoramus who lacks basic reading comprehension ability, or he is being deceitful and argumentative and attempting to paint me in a negative light despite knowing full well he is making false attributions.

Lest I cross any forum rules about insulting or attacking, I will offer you the choice to tell me what possible third option applies to you that I didn't consider.

But regardless, you clearly do not wish to engage in civil, honest discussion with me. You started this little conversation by feigning offense at something that is not all offensive: that our rights are not subject to prior restraint, but that gun owners are very much in favor of voluntarily obtaining training.

Nobody who has read my posts for more than a few months would ever think I was likely to advocate in favor of mandatory training. Not only do I strongly support permit-free constitutional carry, but I've repeatedly expressed my disagreement with current law imposing lifetime loss of rights for felonies and DV misdemeanors. Yes, there is room for disagreement with some as we get to the fringes involving WMDs, or the prudence of OCing long guns. And lots of room for disagreement as we move out of RKBA and into areas such as anarchy vs constitutional republic, or which political party or candidate is less offensive. But within the rraison d'etre of OCDO, one has to look pretty hard to find me in disagreement. You've spend far too much time, looking far too hard.

If you'd ever like to have a productive conversation with me you'll stop referring to me as "mate". Utbagpiper, or Charles are both acceptable. You'll also stop with the games and riddles and attempts to paint me dishonestly.

Over the last year I have declined to respond to your poking for months on end hoping to de-escalate your personality issues with me. I've then attempted to respond civilly giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might be wanting to have a civil, productive discussion. It is clear to me you are trolling and attacking.

Do not expect any further responses.

Charles

 

[solus]

mate, just got to love it when you constantly degrade, are dismissive, as well as are condescending not only towards myself but others whom you feel have challenged your rhetoric...

your quote: But regardless, you clearly do not wish to engage in civil, honest discussion with me.. unquote i find it interesting you seem to make that statement regularly to other forum members who challenge you which leads me to believe since there are other members who you project those sentiments toward, of not treating you like you believe they should, shows that the problem doesn't rest with the member's but only in your skewed perspective of reality.

further, you have skewed my 'feigned' offence at your using the collaboratively using 'WE' for believing everyone who carry has to have training to do so. I never said that.

now you are saying, quote: ...would ever think I was likely to advocate in favor of mandatory training. unquote, yet in the following posts your own words continually state:

1) your quote from post 7: It IS a bad idea for people to carry weapons without having received appropriate training. We all believe that training and safety are crucial.
2) your quote from post 9: If there is any member of this forum who actually thinks training is a bad idea....
3) your quote from post 19: Society has as much interest in making sure its members are properly trained in firearms....

yet you stay befuddled why i call you mate...now, charles, if you wish to be treated appropriately, then act it and knock off the condescending crap towards everyone on the forum who you believe is challenging your perspective of reality...it is a bloody discussion forum and accept your words and quit the 'i didn't say that or this...'

or mate it is forever...

ipse

added ~ for the record i abhor your insistence of condescending brattle towards members and you will notice...i have abstained from engaing in condensending name calling with you yet have gotten your attention every time. think about the concept charles

 

[utbagpiper]

(unwelcome form of address redacted),
(false charge of being offensive)
(insufferable use of "customized" formatting rather than standard formats offered by the forum)
(and more indecipherable ramblings)

...have gotten your attention every time.

Well, pops, nothing to say in response to your admission except:

 

[solus]

from your post quote:
Originally Posted by solus View Post
(unwelcome form of address redacted),
(false charge of being offensive)
(insufferable use of "customized" formatting rather than standard formats offered by the forum)
(and more indecipherable ramblings)


...have gotten your attention every time.

Well, pops, nothing to say in response to your admission except:

and here mate you constantly bemoan the fact you wish to be treated as an adult and hold civil discussions...

as i stated previously...when it hits it will be devastating to you and your psyche...enjoy the spiral, as you look deeply at what upsets your worldunwelcome form of address redacted), (false charge of being offensive), (insufferable use of "customized" formatting rather than standard formats offered by the forum), to cause your commentary to fall where you are resorting to pictures to tell a thousand words of what is actually occurring in the world about you...

also as mentioned previously...you might seek professional assistance sooner rather than later...

ipse

added...kinda like the sound of 'pops'

 

[SFCRetired]

Gentlemen, if I may address you as such,

IANAL, nor do I play one on television, but it would seem to me that, in the case of a defensive shooting, if an ambitious (read "unscrupulous") prosecutor decided to, for whatever reason, go after the shooter, I would suspect that one of the items he would stress to a jury would be a lack of training, and would use that to call into question whether or not the shooter should even have had a firearm.

No, I do not advocate mandatory training as a requirement for open or concealed carry. I do advocate voluntary training, both self and administered by those who make a profession of such training. Those who have had extensive firearms training in the military might, and I say "might", get by with claiming that experience

 

[utbagpiper]

.kinda like the sound of 'pops'

Being the expert on rectal-cranial inversion you are, I suspect you are used to hearing that sound often, pops.

To get back to subject of the thread and away from the toll's attempt to make everything personal, the key point is that mandatory training is offensive to our rights and is thus to be opposed.

Voluntary training is a very good idea and is to be encouraged by all prudent gun owners for both safety and proficiency reasons.

Only trolls would find reason to disagree or be disagreeable on these points.

 

[utbagpiper]

IANAL, nor do I play one on television, but it would seem to me that, in the case of a defensive shooting, if an ambitious (read "unscrupulous") prosecutor decided to, for whatever reason, go after the shooter, I would suspect that one of the items he would stress to a jury would be a lack of training, and would use that to call into question whether or not the shooter should even have had a firearm.

I suspect a good defensive attorney would prevent the prosecutor from admitting any such thing. After all, other than a gun owner admitting to it, how does a prosecutor prove someone hasn't had training?

On the flip side, he might be able to demonstrate frequent trips to the range, frequent ammo purchases to support a shooting habit, maybe even a membership at a gun training facility. Does this mean there is a risk that he uses training as evidence that someone is a wannabee and thus likely to exceed his legal authority?

I doubt it.

If one can provide citations to cases where the training of the private citizen defensive shooter has played a material role, I'll certainly have to re-evaluate my position. But assuming the shots were sufficient to stop the threat, and didn't injure any innocent persons, the prima facia evidence is that technical handling of the gun was sufficient for the circumstances, at least.

No, I do not advocate mandatory training as a requirement for open or concealed carry. I do advocate voluntary training, both self and administered by those who make a profession of such training.

On this we are agreed.

I wouldn't presume to know enough of what specialties get how much training on handguns or otherwise appropriate for civilian self-defense to have an informed opinion on military training.

Charles

 

[solus]

Gentlemen, if I may address you as such,

IANAL, nor do I play one on television, but it would seem to me that, in the case of a defensive shooting, if an ambitious (read "unscrupulous") prosecutor decided to, for whatever reason, go after the shooter, I would suspect that one of the items he would stress to a jury would be a lack of training, and would use that to call into question whether or not the shooter should even have had a firearm.

No, I do not advocate mandatory training as a requirement for open or concealed carry. I do advocate voluntary training, both self and administered by those who make a profession of such training. Those who have had extensive firearms training in the military might, and I say "might", get by with claiming that experience

SFC, gently put with the term ambitious and i agree the dd form 214 would show if, as a cook, admin or supply or specialist, etc., had (other than basic which was a disaster for my group qualified with a pistol sufficiently enough to provide proof of safe firearm handling.

the crux of the matter, IMHO, would center around how could you provide the specifics regarding the laws of deadly force to those who qualified in the armed services as well as JQPublic who go to a box store or their neighbourhood licensee and buy a gun and, in the case of NC...OC off the git-go.

for example...
UT CC permit instruction requires in person instruction, w/o live fire, consisting of a minimum of 4 hours. http://site.utah.gov/dps-criminal/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2015/12/MTC12102015-1.pdf
NC CC permit instruction requires in person instruction, w/live fire, for a minimum of 8 hours w/minimum of 3 hours covering state deadly force laws. 12NCAC 09f
NM CC permit instruction requires in person instruction, w/live fire, for a minimum of 15 hours (i am sorry but unable to locate the specific time criteria an instructor must spend on laws of deadly force.. 10.8.2 NMAC

there would also have to be a commonality across the country on terminology...e.g., UT mentions 4 safety rules, NC and NM use the NRA's three safety rules. (personally never cared for the "Never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy. mentality for a safety rule.

this type of hurdle would require overcoming but i personally do not believe it is insurmountable per se.

ipse

 

[solus]

Being the expert on rectal-cranial inversion you are, I suspect you are used to hearing that sound often, pops.

To get back to subject of the thread and away from the toll's attempt to make everything personal, the key point is that mandatory training is offensive to our rights and is thus to be opposed.

Voluntary training is a very good idea and is to be encouraged by all prudent gun owners for both safety and proficiency reasons.

Only trolls would find reason to disagree or be disagreeable on these points.

mate, i guess you should have delineated your terminology on training in the first place, huh??

tho i have reread my posts and personally do not see where i have been disagreeable on your points only sought clarification...which you perceived as challenge and got into a snit or two...

reality getting really close huh...multiple insults this evening across multiple threads to multiple members...and you have the audacity to hurl insults towards me...

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

i guess you should have said that at the git-go, huh??

pops, I did. Only trolls and illiterate morons could have missed it. Maybe there is a third option I missed that would apply to you and be less offensive. I just can't think of what it might be.

Spend more time reading for understanding, and less time looking to take offense or prove me wrong. Get over your personality issues pops and you'll look foolish less often.