testtest

Should training be mandatory? Answer: No!

TSiWRX said:
^ Exactly one of the points that I keep coming back to, myself.

Empirically, we just haven't seen this to be true. Every time when the antis have shouted from the rooftops that so-and-such new pro-gun law is going to result in carnage in the streets and blood overflowing storm drains, the truth after the law passes and is enacted is 180-degrees opposite.
Click to expand...
The Republican state governments that have promoted and passed Constitutional Carry laws are not going to want such incidents reported publicly. And believe me, being a citizen of Rutherford County, TN, Republican governments are the best at hiding the truth! I'm pro 2A and agree with Constitutional Carry but there needs to be some common sense in regard to basic safety training requirements. A statistical truth simply can't be spun to serve one political ideology or another. It can only be hidden.
 
Chuck B said:
personally, I do not like posting long stories, but this is excerpted from a news article I read this morning that happened in Ohio.
"A Canton man pulled over for speeding is accused of lifting a loaded gun to an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper's face before the trooper was able to grab it away.

the man was reaching around inside the car for something. The trooper told him to stop, and he asked the man to step outside the car.

When he did, the man reportedly reached down beside his right leg and pulled a loaded gun up "towards my face," the trooper wrote in the jail records. The trooper grabbed the gun from his hand and arrested him.

Sgt. David Garber of the patrol's Canton post said that the man was a concealed carry permit holder, but required training teaches that "you are not allowed to touch the firearm in a law enforcement officer's presence. When he brandished the weapon, that's a threat of violence."
so much for the "required" training....................
Click to expand...
At least he had some form of training.
 
C. Sumpin said:
I think ur pulling my leg. You are having fun aren't you? You could hardly own a firearm or be interested in the 2A or the 1A if you really really believed CNN and entertainment shows like it are genuine news organizations. They are political propaganda outlets promoting the (Communist) State. Bet you enjoy watching daytime soaps to? And believe they are reality? I don't do "conspiracy" theories.

I'll keep having a look at your posts, you are entertaining and outlandish but I'm not going to take you serious.
Click to expand...
I think ur pulling my leg. You are having fun aren't you? You could hardly know that I own NFA items (minus the M16A2 machinegun stolen by criminal Sheriff's deputies in Republican controlled Rutherford County, TN) or understand my interest in the 2A is based upon my inventions and innovations used in the firearms industry or the 1A if you really really believe Fox and entertainment shows like it are genuine news organizations. They are political propaganda outlets promoting the (Fascist) Red States. Bet you enjoy listening to talk radio too? And believe the voice on the radio is telling you reality? I don't let radio voices tell me what to think.
I'll keep posting so you can look, I'll try to be entertaining yet informative but I'm going to try to wake you up.
 
I'm still waiting on those links showing what a big problem lack of training causes.

After all we have had many years of concealed carry across the entire US of A. So there should be many stories to choose from to prove that people with no training shoot everyone and anything around them .
 
No, but I do believe each individual should search out some sort of training be it in person, classroom, or online. Note. I do not believe that this should be mandated by the government.
 
Not really touching on the mandatory part (I'm rarely a fan of mandatory anything, especially when government is involved), I'd say that early introduction to and knowledge about firearms would go a long way toward eliminating a lot of the stigma around them and would also make it much safer.
 
papa said:
I'm still waiting on those links showing what a big problem lack of training causes.

After all we have had many years of concealed carry across the entire US of A. So there should be many stories to choose from to prove that people with no training shoot everyone and anything around them .
Click to expand...
If you ask a foreign national they'll tell you that we have to step over bodies in the streets on a daily basis!
 
straydoglogic said:
Not really touching on the mandatory part (I'm rarely a fan of mandatory anything, especially when government is involved), I'd say that early introduction to and knowledge about firearms would go a long way toward eliminating a lot of the stigma around them and would also make it much safer.
Click to expand...
Much the way it used to be. I was introduced to guns before I started elementary school. My dad taught me to properly respect guns and what they're capable of. Most kids I grew up with had similar introductions. We rabbit, squirrel, and bird hunted from 8-10 years old without supervision. We knew how to respect guns and gun related activities.

There were actually shooting teams in high schools. Not to mention the fact we used to carry our long guns in a rack in the rear windows of our trucks to and from school while parking in the school parking lots. There was little to no concern about guns on school campus back then.

As an aside, I bought my first ever shotgun from the Ag teacher in my high school when I was about 16 or 17 IIRC. The teach brought the gun into school that morning and put it in his classroom closet till school was out. I went to his classroom and looked the gun over, paid him his money and walked out to my truck right through the middle of school campus.

None of those guns ever got out of a truck on campus and hurt or harmed anyone! The guns have not changed in those years ...... what has?
 
ACIinventor said:
The Republican state governments that have promoted and passed Constitutional Carry laws are not going to want such incidents reported publicly. And believe me, being a citizen of Rutherford County, TN, Republican governments are the best at hiding the truth! I'm pro 2A and agree with Constitutional Carry but there needs to be some common sense in regard to basic safety training requirements. A statistical truth simply can't be spun to serve one political ideology or another. It can only be hidden.
Click to expand...
And we're the conspiracy theorists?
 
ACIinventor said:
You are ignoring a problem because you fear the solution might be used to infringe 2A rights. So you're willing to put American citizens in increased danger just to protect your right to keep and bear arms. A right that will likely not be restricted by a safety training requirement. Don't you think that's a little selfish? I'm pretty sure the ultimate intent of our forefathers for the 2A is to protect the nation by providing the ability to defend the Constitution. Well, a nation is made up of people. The very people who will find themselves in increased danger from untrained gun owners exercising their 2A rights. That danger can be reduced with training.
Click to expand...
I know it's pointless to bang my head against this wall, but what the hell.

I'm not ignoring a problem. I am actively looking for evidence of it, and not finding it. You are asserting there is, or will be, a problem without citing evidence of it. I don't "fear the solution might be used to infringe 2A rights." I have already observed that it does: long waiting lists for training; high financial burdens; long travel distances for multiple days. If these are not infringements, what could be? All for the promise of a benefit which can't be demonstrated, only assumed.

Your presumption of risk to the public applies equally to me. I assume that risk for the sake of others' liberty, not just my own. If that's your idea of "selfish," I suggest you consult a dictionary.
 
ACIinventor said:
The Republican state governments that have promoted and passed Constitutional Carry laws are not going to want such incidents reported publicly. And believe me, being a citizen of Rutherford County, TN, Republican governments are the best at hiding the truth! I'm pro 2A and agree with Constitutional Carry but there needs to be some common sense in regard to basic safety training requirements. A statistical truth simply can't be spun to serve one political ideology or another. It can only be hidden.
Click to expand...

Certainly - either side can (and both certainly have) "juke(d) the stats." Mark Twain (special place in my heart for more than one reason, not the least of which was that he made good fun of my Alma Mater :p ) very eloquently put that into words, in Chapters from My Autobiography.

But if we are to take this somewhat conspiracist view, couldn't we also say that "liberal mainstream media" would certainly tear into such attempts at cover-up? ;) Especially as they'd predicted it to begin with? Yet, empirically, we have not seen this to be the case.....
 
Chuck B said:
<snip> Sgt. David Garber of the patrol's Canton post said that the man was a concealed carry permit holder, but required trainingteaches that "you are not allowed to touch the firearm in a law enforcement officer's presence. When he brandished the weapon, that's a threat of violence."
so much for the "required" training....................
Click to expand...
Keystone19250 said:
I’ve been through 3 CCDW classes in 3 different states and not one of them discussed that you are “not allowed” to touch your firearm in the presence of law enforcement. <snip>
Click to expand...
C. Sumpin said:
If I'm ever stopped by LE, I keep my hands on the wheel, do as I'm asked.
I may or may not inform LE of the contents of my right front pocket, will
depend on circumstances. Just me.
Click to expand...

As many of you know both from my previous discussions in this thread and others, I currently hold a valid Ohio Concealed Handgun License. I'm in my third renewal, actually. And as those of you also know from other such posts, I try very hard to stay up-to-date with such laws. :geek: Nerdy, I know, but it's necessary as ignorance of the law is never an excuse. :)

And please don't take my post here the wrong way - the following is not intended to be antagonistic towards any of you whom I've cited/quoted above. I actually gave each of you a "Like" on those posts because it allows the opportunity for a few learning points here for *_every_* reader of this thread.

The part about us OH-CHL holders specifically being prohibited from touching our firearm (unless legally ordered to so by the officer) during an official interaction with law enforcement has long been in the ORC:

Section 2923.12 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws

codes.ohio.gov codes.ohio.gov

And this is also specifically and clearly delineated in the Ohio Concealed Carry Laws Manual (linked below, page 13), and has always been a BIG a part of the mandated classroom training (and often also a point of discussion at considerably "less basic" training events) that we as CHL applicants must attend.


Certainly, while your respective state(s) may not have such laws in its books, Ohio does (and has, for well over 10 years).

This is where two very important things become very apparent.

That the mish-mash state-to-state laws can and will create honest confusion, even for folks who are otherwise "in the know."

And also that it is demonstrably *VERY* important for anyone who would have the need to cross their home-state's borders to be *_very_* cognizant of the laws of their destination state, as well as the states they will be traveling through.
 
TSiWRX said:
As many of you know both from my previous discussions in this thread and others, I currently hold a valid Ohio Concealed Handgun License. I'm in my third renewal, actually. And as those of you also know from other such posts, I try very hard to stay up-to-date with such laws. :geek: Nerdy, I know, but it's necessary as ignorance of the law is never an excuse. :)

And please don't take my post here the wrong way - the following is not intended to be antagonistic towards any of you whom I've cited/quoted above. I actually gave each of you a "Like" on those posts because it allows the opportunity for a few learning points here for *_every_* reader of this thread.

The part about us OH-CHL holders specifically being prohibited from touching our firearm (unless legally ordered to so by the officer) during an official interaction with law enforcement has long been in the ORC:

Section 2923.12 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws

codes.ohio.gov codes.ohio.gov

And this is also specifically and clearly delineated in the Ohio Concealed Carry Laws Manual (linked below, page 13), and has always been a BIG a part of the mandated classroom training (and often also a point of discussion at considerably "less basic" training events) that we as CHL applicants must attend.


Certainly, while your respective state(s) may not have such laws in its books, Ohio does (and has, for well over 10 years).

This is where two very important things become very apparent.

That the mish-mash state-to-state laws can and will create honest confusion, even for folks who are otherwise "in the know."

And also that it is demonstrably *VERY* important for anyone who would have the need to cross their home-state's borders to be *_very_* cognizant of the laws of their destination state, as well as the states they will be traveling through.
Click to expand...

TSIWRX,
Am pretty sure know where and know you're trying to come from and that's likely good for all firearms owners, but? That's actually a lot of info in some ways with all considered crowded into one space to ponder all at once.

I know you likely didn't write Ohio's laws. Much of what's in Ohio's laws is an infringement from what read in displayed info, some laws are conflicting or could be construed as being so without reading the rest of them too?

Simple logic and use could've flown out the window as well? Like for example carrying another dangerous weapons is prohibited while carrying a concealed HG? Then, later on in an another area, it expounds and explains possible differences and exclusions of knives and razors for example. That info can and could be misconstrued by and officer or someone else. See below.

Some of the law almost defies simple logic and need like when going to, during or after hunting for example when having both CC firearms and a knife while simply walking down a road? Storage is almost nil or non existent for example when walking, but needs are still there? And, then how some of the law is written, it appears an accused person is to likely perceived to have or own a vehicle or other storage device like a trailer with them in some sense? Just another law that could be misinterpreted and abused? And, yet another? Show proof of what within 10 days if incarcerated for 11 to 90 days for a possible offense may come to mind? Just a chance for more possible abuse, confusion and misinterpretation?

Your description and words of "mish-mash" does come to mind at times because of those examples? Knowing laws is one thing, understanding them, carrying them out and their intent may be another? Best bet is to likely and normally to be respectful of others when needed in known and unknown areas while traveling. That way, even possible mistakes turn out with better results? :)

The confusion, conflict of states laws? Another thought to possibly consider and why our founders and writers of our foundational laws also included the lack of infringements in them and them having effect to the 2nd Amendment is to likely and possibly eliminate confusion between states and eliminate other laws infringing on rights of the 2A of our whole Nation for our needs, use and to enjoy? Our nations laws should be considered a passport in some ways and are in some, but not all, to allow unimpeded travel throughout all states while traveling. - Could anyone imagine needing to have an individual drivers license and or plates for each state while simply traveling through them? On that example, many semi trucks do or may need to. Ouch?

Unfortunately, even given the simplest of words and meanings, things can sometimes be twisted into other meanings and deeds? Gotta love some lawyers and laws, right? Even some of the simplest of meanings and interpretations can be gone in the breeze? Honesty and other things may also be swept out the other window by ignorance of and by some state laws? The best laws, if any are needed, are the simplest. Compounding creates confusion, is that the intent?



"This is where two very important things become very apparent.

That the mish-mash state-to-state laws can and will create honest confusion, even for folks who are otherwise "in the know."

And also that it is demonstrably *VERY* important for anyone who would have the need to cross their home-state's borders to be *_very_* cognizant of the laws of their destination state, as well as the states they will be traveling through."

- Definitely agree. If the Nations 2nd Amendment was enforced as written and intended by the states, the national confusion would be eliminated about many firearms rights so there is only one for people to understand and abide by.
 
TSiWRX said:
As many of you know both from my previous discussions in this thread and others, I currently hold a valid Ohio Concealed Handgun License. I'm in my third renewal, actually. And as those of you also know from other such posts, I try very hard to stay up-to-date with such laws. :geek: Nerdy, I know, but it's necessary as ignorance of the law is never an excuse. :)

And please don't take my post here the wrong way - the following is not intended to be antagonistic towards any of you whom I've cited/quoted above. I actually gave each of you a "Like" on those posts because it allows the opportunity for a few learning points here for *_every_* reader of this thread.

The part about us OH-CHL holders specifically being prohibited from touching our firearm (unless legally ordered to so by the officer) during an official interaction with law enforcement has long been in the ORC:

Section 2923.12 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws

codes.ohio.gov codes.ohio.gov

And this is also specifically and clearly delineated in the Ohio Concealed Carry Laws Manual (linked below, page 13), and has always been a BIG a part of the mandated classroom training (and often also a point of discussion at considerably "less basic" training events) that we as CHL applicants must attend.


Certainly, while your respective state(s) may not have such laws in its books, Ohio does (and has, for well over 10 years).

This is where two very important things become very apparent.

That the mish-mash state-to-state laws can and will create honest confusion, even for folks who are otherwise "in the know."

And also that it is demonstrably *VERY* important for anyone who would have the need to cross their home-state's borders to be *_very_* cognizant of the laws of their destination state, as well as the states they will be traveling through.
Click to expand...
Let me first start by saying I understand that every state has different laws when it comes to classes for a CCDW permit and I’ve said many times that anyone that plans a trip across state lines needs to educate themselves on the laws in every state they plan on traveling through with a firearm, I mentioned my experience only because the 3 states I’ve been through classes in never discussed it being a (law) that you don’t touch your firearm in the presence of law enforcement, if it was discussed because it was a law I would have accepted that. That being said my post was about common sense and I feel my level of common sense is appropriate enough that I would never reach for or handle a firearm in the presence of law enforcement. If Ohio has that law on the books good for them.
 
Ranger715 said:
I know it's pointless to bang my head against this wall, but what the hell.

I'm not ignoring a problem. I am actively looking for evidence of it, and not finding it. You are asserting there is, or will be, a problem without citing evidence of it. I don't "fear the solution might be used to infringe 2A rights." I have already observed that it does: long waiting lists for training; high financial burdens; long travel distances for multiple days. If these are not infringements, what could be? All for the promise of a benefit which can't be demonstrated, only assumed.

Your presumption of risk to the public applies equally to me. I assume that risk for the sake of others' liberty, not just my own. If that's your idea of "selfish," I suggest you consult a dictionary.
Click to expand...

Gotta be a troll. Or has some sort of brain damage. There are 21 states with permitless carry. Several, including mine, have been that way for years. If it was going to be a problem there would be evidence of it by now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top