Required training for nationwide CCW

[Conn. Trooper]

What would you guys think should be required as far as a license/permit and training in order to get a nationwide ccw if one existed? I am not sure where I would start, I never had a permit, I was a cop when I was 18 and have been a LEO my entire adult life. I do know that on the rare chance I go to a public range I usually see more then one person that scares the hell out of me with their shooting and safety skills ( or lack of shooting and and safety skills) . Please don't turn this into a "Cops are all idiots about guns and I shoot better than all cops, etc." argument. What would you think is acceptable as far as training and licensing in order to get a CCW good anywhere in the US?

I think a fairly reasonable class in safety, carrying, and shooting your handguns, along with a background check, would be acceptable. Maybe a photo ID for the CCW permit itself?

Thoughts?

[AZ Med18]

I would say since its a right. Really nothing. It should be that non is needed.

Back to reality. Something like the test for a drivers license at max...

Simple test then a small range shoot.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This is an interesting proposal as it seems to have the promise of expand carry across the country, so some thoughts:

1. Does a test up the standards for states that don't have them. There really doesn't seem to be a difference in shooting behavior between test and nontest states - but I'm not sure how intense the investigation has been. The numbers of CCW screw ups are small and while some are failures of training - I don't know if the one day class is really tactically up to speed.

2. The 10 not shall issue states will have a fit - since they are big ones like IL, CA and NY - do you want to listen to Finestein and Schumaer for example frothing at the mouth?

3. A national standard can be easily upped and national where to carry regs put in. I can see the sob sisters on the national level forbidding movie, church and mall carry - all for the children. And then demanding insurance, etc.

4. If states would grant reciprocity more easily that would be good. Some constitutional expert here can state if licenses can be forced to be recognized by other states. That is fun because the antis of NYC who make it hell to get a permit would have to allow all the fun TX guys like me to carry.

5. If you do have nationally mandated reciprocity, there's a double edged sword - again for all you Constitution buffs and this has been stated - then will all states be forced to recognize the gay marriages in the states that have such - thus the revenge of the blue on the red for the red on the blue. Haha.

I've always argued the moral position that if you do carry and talk the talk - you will stop crime and rampages and the UN - you need to train. I have that fight with friends who carry on about carry on campus but don't train. But they see themselves as Captain America in a high intensity gun fight.

[peetzakilla]

I support a test to verify US citizenship and non-felon status. Period, end of sentence.

Unless and until someone can show that lack of training is causing a problem then there is no need.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In the sense that a lack of training only causes themselves to come to ill (meaning they screw up and get hurt themselves), I agree about legally mandate training.

Empirically, if we saw permit and licenses types causing others to be hurt, then I might require training but we haven't seen that yet. We've just seen them getting themselves into trouble.

[Wagonman]

I was involved in a identical thread on another forum. I had my mind changed with reasoned posts. No training should be required but, should be taken. Because, the level training necessary would be subjective and be open to "funny business"

[Dust Monkey]

No mandated training. The permit system should die. Once you have to ask permission to exercise a right, it is no longer a right. Period.

[BillM]

Whatever the current standards are in the state of issue. Like a drivers
license. We don't need a "nationwide permit", just the same recognition
as drivers licenses.

[Kreyzhorse]

I think a fairly reasonable class in safety, carrying, and shooting your handguns, along with a background check, would be acceptable. Maybe a photo ID for the CCW permit itself?

I don't have an issue with this type of testing. It's very similar to the method that Kentucky uses.

However, the testing's goal should not be to elimate people from CCW, but to educate them on CCW while giving them basic gun safety enroute to getting their permit. In other words, everyone should "pass" the course while walking away with some basic training and knowledge of the CCW laws.

[JWT]

IMO we don't need a Federal permit or document with all the associated paperwork and bureaucracy. We need reciprocity where all states recognize another states permits - just as all states recognize another states drivers license.

[Dragon55]

I'm not crazy about anything that blurs the state lines. It's a few more steps down a road I don't want to go.

[Al Norris]

JWT just hit the nail on the head.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well for starters, I don't see any basis for the federal government to issue or regulate concealed carry in the states. If the federal government can grant it, then the feds can also take it away (as they have demonstrated numerous times on other subjects). As a whole, I think RKBA is better off if it remains regulated by the states.

If the federal government were to pass such a bill, then the training would have to be objective and at a minimum, no more difficult than what law enforcement officers were required to meet in similar federal standards.

My ideal would be no training requirement at all. My basis for this belief is that since we have started keeping records of death and injuries by accidental gunshot wounds, the numbers are at an all-time low. Out of 300 million firearms and somewhere between 44-80 million gun owners, there are less than 1,000 accidental gunshot deaths every year. An even smaller percentage involve CCW. Given the potential for the abuse of training requirements at the hands of the government (especially the current one) and the almost non-existent penalty of no training, I favor no training at all.

Having said that, if you are a responsible adult who is serious about your personal safety, you already understand that even some of the more demanding shall-issue state's training requirements are a joke. People who are legally blind can pass the state requirements in Texas, which include a shooting qualification (and the state requirements here were modeled on law enforcement standards if that makes you feel better).

People who are serious will go out and spend the additional money to get quality personal instruction on that issue. People who aren't, will not; but that doesn't mean that I think a 69yr old grandmother who doesn't want to spend $2,000.00 and three days standing on the range shouldn't be legally allowed to carry a pistol for her protection.

[Trooper Tyree]

I don't like the idea, but at the same time I do believe people need to be more knowledgeable and that doesn't come by taking a 4 hour CCL class where they speed talk their way through laws, rules, regulation and revolver operates like this, simi-auto like this.

At my CC class the shooting portion took place at about 15'. There was a lady who's first mag didn't even hit the man sized paper target. We had two people who continually tried to put their thumb or grip behind the slide. Personally I thought letting it bite them once would help them remember but the instructor didn't think that would be a good idea... :rolleyes:

Perhaps it could be a two step process. You take the class, and then are required to do X amount of range time before you can submit your application. You could be given a booklet at the class that has places to record where, when, how long, and a place for your signature and a person of authority at the range/class/police officer, etc, wherever you are doing your range time.

I don't think there is a simple or good solution. At the moment I just shudder at how many people out there are carrying without a clue about gun safety and without an iota of skill in actually hitting their target. :eek:

[Dragon55]

Trooper, I too shudder. I saw some of the blue haired group coming in to the local DMV a few years ago to pick up their CC permits. They had already finished their "training". Some of these folks were using canes. I guess it was a 'special' class since they all appeared to be 70+.

However, it is their right to carry. Actually I'm much more concerned about driving near them than I am about them accidentally shooting me. And......FWIW driving is not a right... it's a privalege. We don't do any kind of periodic re-testing for driving (and I think we should!) so any intensive training that is imposed just to exercise a right(CCW)I would object to.

[Dust Monkey]

People who carry should take the time to practice and learn how to use their weapon. But remember, its not just citizens you have to worry about. I remember viewing a Traffic Stop Video where 2 troopers opened up on 2 suspects, both firing in excess of 30 rounds, never hit anyone.

I tell everyone you must practice, practice and more practice. But, I do not want any government, local, state or federal involved. The permit system is unconstitutional IMO. A right is a right. One does not need permission to exercise it.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This might be tangential - but I think instructors could have a market for the older folk on responsible gun use and reasonable tactics for them.

I know that around here, courses for women are springing up. It should be easy to do this for older folk.

[OuTcAsT]

No mandate other than what your State requires. Additional training, or lack thereof, is a personal responsibility.

[AZ Med18]

You don't have to take a class to attend the religion of your choice, speak your mind (even if we don't want to hear it), and other rights that we have.

Is the second amendment the only one that gets a permit/certificate/license?

[pictureman]

I agree with some.. This is a right, not a privilege.. And less control is better.. I am one of those "blue hairs" (64) that has a carry permit.. and I know how and when to use my weapon.. I only pray I NEVER have to. Even so, I still think some training is really needed on how and when to even let others know you are armed. I would hate to see some one get shot during a simple dispute, hot head traffic or.... So there should be some clear cut training of some type on the responsibilities of carrying. I now only carry when camping, pack backing or hiking and traveling, or going to the range (weekly) I don't carry daily any more. But I did for over 40yrs..
Training is good but shouldn't be a pass or fail but as one said, should be educating.

[Bud Helms]

Agree with JWT.

Federally mandated reciprocity or federally issued CCW could take the manner of use and issue out of state's hands. Let's not do that. I personally don't want Schumer, Lautenberg, Feinstein types involved in the circumstances of issue of my license, thank you. At least I have the option, inconvenient though it may be, to move to another state where I believe the gun laws are more favorable. Not that I would, though. Georgia is fine.

[AirForceShooter]

Do you seriously want Obama to choose who gets to carry nationwide?
Or that New York City, Chicago or San Franciso would allow it?
Leave it to the States.

AFS

[Wagonman]

This topic is going the way of the last one.

I was in favor of some training prior to issuance of a CCW, until I heard the arguements against.

No one with an iota of common sense advocates using a tool without instruction in it's proper use. However, the MO of the anti's is "reasonable" regulation. what's reasonable to one is onerous to another. Jeez, it was a major controversy here whether or not to carry an extra magazine.


The only requirement I would think is apropos is no violent criminal history and maybe a note from your doctor saying you are in sound mind.

[Conn. Trooper]

Actually the shooting I think you are referring to happened in Ohio between the Kehoe brothers an Ohio Highway Patrolman and a Deputy Sheriff. The Deputy is the only LEO shooting and actually hits Kehoe several times, he is wearing body armor and still runs away.

I agree that training requirements can be used as a tool to take away the right to carry, however what would be acceptable? In a perfect world there would be no need to discuss this, a right is a right. However, we don't live there. What would be a good minimum of training or licensing for nationwide reciprocity? The training standards as they stand scare the hell out of me. Lots of people that carry guns everyday scare the hell out of me. What would be a good way to approach this? A state level? Federal? Have the NRA spearhead the effort?

[Waitone]

Has the lack of extended or standardized training been shown to contribute to an increase in accidental shooting? In other words, if there is no problem why should government throw another requirement on those who want a CCH? I could easily support a voluntary system whereby those who train in CCH according to state law would impose a prereq requirement of an NRA beginners class. Again, voluntary. I am personally not a big fan of a national CCH law because it give our statists just one more means of interfering with constitutionally protected rights.

[armoredman]

Howabout this, offer firearms education in high school, like drivers ed, without making it mandatory...kinda like AZ already allows.
...I saw some of the blue haired group coming in to the local DMV a few years ago to pick up their CC permits. They had already finished their "training". Some of these folks were using canes. I guess it was a 'special' class since they all appeared to be 70+.
Some of those little old people were killing Japanese, Nazis, or Chinese before you were born. They are more fragile than most anyone else out there - they need Sam Colt's "equalizer" more than some strapping young types I know.
I had a permit when AZ law went into effect, then later I let it expire when my state issued ID took over. Seen both sides, worked as an assistant instructor for CCW classes at a local range for 1.5 years. Seen my fellow staff qualifying each year on the Dept range. Toss up on who's worse.
Agree on reciprocity - I don't want to have to deal with an onerous requirement added by some New Yorker or Californian, ours works just fine.

[10mm man]

If we have learned anything the last couple of months, we need to keep this out of the hands of the federal govt. It would take us down the road to confiscation surely faster.
I agree with those that say reciprocity should be extended between all the states.

[orangello]

I would be all for a voluntary training program that offered some additional carry options, but i do not favor opening the door to more federal supervision of my rights as a gun owner.

For ME, not speaking for anyone else, i wouldn't mind taking a course on handgun safety that was tailored to concealed carry situations, so long as it was voluntary. I do not have my permit but plan to obtain one before the summer's end.

I realize that driving on public roads is a priviledge & not a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but simply for comparisons' sake, in some places a rider safety course can/must be completed to get a motorcycle permit with less hassle & testing. Perhaps a national training class or program could be used to "fast track" an applicant's carry permit approval.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

BTW, a national 'training' system will entail a federal license or similar certificate for trainers. Another bureaucracy. I suggest raising the taxes on wealthy gun owners to pay for that? Or a luxury gun tax on those expensive shotguns or fancy dancy 1911s? Or a tax on ammo?

TX CHL instructors do have to go through a class to be certified.

What do you think? :D

[knight0334]

My vote is no for a training requirement. Its bad enough we have to get licenses to carry concealed, requiring training is just conceding away your rights even further.

The next thing you'll need is a license and training to practice a religion, or speak your mind.

[doh_312]

Just a simple hunter safety course would be good enough for me. My class was a weekend of lecture, with a final 10 rnd shoot with a .22 rifle at the range. I think that is a that should be strongly suggested by our govt. I do not think they should be able to force any kind of classes before your allowed to exercise your 2nd ammendment right.

[stevelyn]

Training should be highly recommended, but not mandated.

[grey sky]

Every time I hear people speak of training I think of the expert who was the only one in the room qualified to handle this Glock BANG!
One trains a dog not a man.

[Wagonman]

One trains a dog not a man.

That is a perfect example of a statement that sounds wise but isn't.

Why can't a man be trained?

[44 AMP]

I am in the reciprocity camp. NO Federal standard need or should be allowed to exist.

Want a perfect example? Just look at the Fed program "allowing" pilots to be armed!

Think govt. health care is a good idea? Just look at the wonderful job they do with the VA hospitals!

Anytime we can keep anything out of the Fed gov. reach, it is a good thing!

[grey sky]

Wagonman
A man is educated then makes decisions. A dog is trained and will obey without question.

[Wagonman]

Distinction without a difference.

You can be trained to make proper decisions

[ImprobableJoe]

Specifically addressing the topic of "nationwide" CCW? I don't see a serious problem with reciprocity. It works for my drivers licence after all. If Florida thinks I'm good to go, the other 49 states should accept it.

My stance on training in general is "the more the better" and a certain amount of demonstration should be required... again, just like my drivers licence. All talk about rights and anti-government concerns set aside for the moment, from a practical standpoint we all know that the purpose of a CCW is to be able to kill another human being. That's an awesome responsibility, and you should be able to demonstrate that you can actually kill the person who needs killing, and not shoot yourself or an innocent bystander in the process.

[Wagonman]

I don't see a serious problem with reciprocity. It works for my drivers licence after all. If Florida thinks I'm good to go, the other 49 states should accept it.


Driving is a privilege not a right.


My stance on training in general is "the more the better" and a certain amount of demonstration should be required

My stance is also the more training the better, but there shouldn't be any to exercise your RIGHT to bear arm

[ImprobableJoe]

My stance is also the more training the better, but there shouldn't be any to exercise your RIGHT to bear armAll rights have restrictions, none are absolute... and thank goodness for it! :)

I'm guessing that this is a "agree to disagree" thing...

[PT111]

I am against any Federal mandated, controlled or sanctioned CCW process. :) The problem with the nationwide recognition is those states that are either may issue or non issue at all. Then you have those states where it is not statewide. As for training I think that before anyone steps out into th epublic with a gun on their side, in their pocket or purse they should be required to demonstrate that they know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of and can at least hit the side of a barn while inside of it without shooting themselves. Inside your house, I don't care but not walking down the street. Secondly some basic understanding of the laws should be required.

When I say basic understanding I mean such things as a CCW does not make you a policeman. I have seen posts on this board where newly licensed members have asked such questions. Also such things as you shouldn't shoot someone in the back while they are running away, that seems to be a reoccuring question on here. As for the citizenship, sane or of good character tests I am not sure about those. I also think it should be shall issue and the local sheriffs taken out of it and turned over to a state agency.

[Parapliers]

One can be trained to make politically correct decisions. Americans have been trained to repeat the mantra " Driving is a privilege not a right."

[Al Norris]

Parapliers has it correct.

This also ties in directly to gun rights as it pertains to taxation and licensure (permits) in order to own (keep) and use (bear) the right.

[PT111]

One can be trained to make politically correct decisions. Americans have been trained to repeat the mantra " Driving is a privilege not a right."

Requiring a drivers license in no way restricts your right to travel in the US. It only restricts your right to pilot a 2 ton weapon down a publicly owned right of way. You can drive a car all you want while on private property and can travel in a car bus, truck or train as long as someone else is the pilot. You can also hook up your covered wagon, get on back off your horse or walk freely all over the US You can ever drive your lawnmore or tractor. You just can't pilot that weapon on the highway. Yes driving is a privilege.

[Too Tall in Texas]

Driving is a privilege, not a right?

South Dakota was the last state to require driver licensing (in 1954). Most states started out with just issuing the licenses and all one had to do was pay the fee; there were no tests involved in many cases.

I'd argue that driving is a right that has been regulated, just as many other freedoms/rights have been regulated. One of the really bad side effects of gun regulation, imnsho, is that the mindset of the public is too often conditioned to believe that the RKBA is a privilege and not an inherent right in the U.S.

To sort of answer the original question: I don't have a problem with Texas' requirements for a state CCL. I think they're a little too strict on what laws one can break and still qualify, but I won't get into that. The fifteen hour required course I took was worth the time and effort; and I learned some things I didn't know about Texas statutes re guns. While CCL instructors in Texas vary in quality, they do have to be licensed by the state to teach and I think that's reasonable. I mean, if you're gonna require a license for carrying a gun, then the least you can do is make sure the qualifying course meets minimum standards, right? The gun safety part of the course was a plus. I don't think people can be reminded of these things too often, even if they've been taught about them from early on. The shooting requirements sure wouldn't get you a marksman medal, but it seems adequate for the purpose; and I don't suppose it's a bad thing to require that you prove you can put a minimum number of bullets in the proverbial barn side. I personally don't have any problem with the photo ID on Texas CCLs or that you get fingerprinted (twice!) to get their piece of plastic. I have a right to own and bear arms and this is a regulation by the Lone Star State on parts of that right, just as my Texas DL is, and I can live with both for the most part. All that said, I can't adequately verbalize how deeply against a national CCL I am. It would be just one more messed up federal regulatory bureaucracy over something certainly better handled by the states. No thank you!

Aside: I, too, have seen folks at ranges who obviously weren't raised with guns or at least certainly weren't taught about safe gun handling. I feel sorry for them and sorrier for the rest of us; but seeing such makes me appreciate my dad all over again. LOL (I wish I had a nickel for every time he told me, "Guns are always loaded; even the ones you can see have no bullets in 'em." I'd retire.) I just leave the range when the seriously unsafe show up; but I wonder if ranges shouldn't tell these woefully ignorant souls they can't come back until they've taken a course in gun safety.

[PT111]

In 1954 there was maybe a half dozen paved roads total in the area that I grew up in. I remember most of the roads being paved and a lot of people in my community including several of my relatives got into the road paving business because it was the new thing. We lived right beside Hwy 301 and if you don't remember it was the major N-S highway that was replaced by I-95. Only because of luck was I not killed on that highway. The speed limit was 55 and most of the time you were lucky if you could get up to 45. I doubt that South Dakota had many more paved roads than we did.

As I have told before I watched two ladies shot a a human size target 100 rounds from 3 yards and hit it three times. Neither one could shoot with their eyes open. I would never deny them the right to have a gun in their home but I don't want to be around either one if they try to defend themselves in a Wal-Mart.

And please note that I never said driving was a privilege. I drove around all over the place on dirt roads when I was 8 years old. Having a drivers license to drive on the public highways is a privilege. There is a BIG difference. Just like shooting. You can shoot at a shooting range all you want to but you can't sight your scope in on main street.

[Wagonman]

Perfect clarification of the point.

[OuTcAsT]

This also ties in directly to gun rights as it pertains to taxation and licensure (permits) in order to own (keep) and use (bear) the right.

Absolutely, Other than "toll roads" and "ferrys" Americans have been free to travel without encumbrance, the method of conveyance, IE: foot, horse, wagon, even automobile, was not an issue. The Right to travel freely was only changed when someone realized that there was a revenue source available thru a "tax" in the form of requiring a "license" to operate an automobile on a roadway. It was not until much later that, under the banner of "safety" that testing became required. Free travel is a right, just like the RKBA, and has been infringed "for safety" exactly like our 2A rights.

[Al Norris]

For those of you that believe that driving is a privilege, I have a few court cases for you. The following are Supreme Court, Circuit Court, State High Court and other appellate court findings:

“The right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).

“No state government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation, i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurance.” Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.

“Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with public interest and convenience.” ibid at 206.

“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” ibid at 221.

“It is well-established law that the highways of the state are public property; and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes...” Stephenson v. Binford 287 U.S. 251, 264, et al.

“It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state.” Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 547.

“The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.” Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.

“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

“A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful.” Littleton v Burgess, 82 P 864, 866, 14 Wyo 173.

“A license is a right granted by some competent authority to do an act which, without such license, would be illegal.” Beard v City of Atlanta 86 SE 2nd 672, 676; 91 Ga. App. 584.

“A licensee is one privileged to enter or remain on land by virtue of the possessor’s consent, whether given by invitation or permission.” Wool v Larner, 26 A 2nd 89, 92, 112 Vt. 431.

“The licensor has the power to prohibit. Since the licensor is in the position to grant a right or permission it logically follows that he has the power to prohibit the act also. Likewise, having the power to prohibit something from being done, it follows as a corollary that power also exists to permit its use.” Taylor v Smith, 140 Va. 217, 235.

“A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family.” Arthur v Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 (S.D. NY 1884).

“The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of.” Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907).

“A soldier’s personal automobile is part of his “household goods[.]”” U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235 “19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.”

“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the constitutional guarantees of which the citizen not be deprived without due process of law.” Berberian v. Lussier, 139 A.2d 869, 872; 87 R.I. 226, 231 (1958). See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).

“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

“The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.” Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972).

Driving is part and parcel of the right to travel. Requiring a license to drive, in a non-commercial manner, is repugnant to the right to travel. Requiring registration of your private vehicle, since it part of your "household effects," is also repugnant to your right to personal property, as it singles out a specific property and does not require all personal property to be registered (when moving on a public byway), if even that were possible. Further, since your vehicle is tied to your right to travel, it is, again, repugnant to require such registration (licensure).

This is one possible future of gun rights.

[ImprobableJoe]

Driving is part and parcel of the right to travel. Requiring a license to drive, in a non-commercial manner, is repugnant to the right to travel. Requiring registration of your private vehicle, since it part of your "household effects," is also repugnant to your right to personal property, as it singles out a specific property and does not require all personal property to be registered (when moving on a public byway), if even that were possible. Further, since your vehicle is tied to your right to travel, it is, again, repugnant to require such registration (licensure).

This is one possible future of gun rights.

Yeah! The government already took our cars, and they're going to come after our guns next!!

... ohhh, wait. That never happened, did it? I guess living in a nation of laws isn't so "repugnant" after all. :D (Don't get mad at me!!)

The point is that the world is a better place when there are rules and regulations in it.

[44 AMP]

The point is that the world is a better place when there are rules and regulations in it.

And when the rules say that all persons of a particular class must wear an identifying mark (such as a yellow star or pink triangle), is the world a better place because of those rules?


Not to me it isn't!

[ImprobableJoe]

And when the rules say that all persons of a particular class must wear an identifying mark (such as a yellow star or pink triangle), is the world a better place because of those rules?


Not to me it isn't! Right... because getting a drivers licence or a gun permit is just like "That."

[OuTcAsT]

The point is that the world is a better place when there are rules and regulations in it.


Rules and regulations are fine, and necessary, as long as they do not negate a persons rights.

Rules and regulations are mere legislation. Rights are not, they are as natural as the air we breathe.

Right... because getting a drivers licence or a gun permit is just like "That."

It is exactly like that. A specific class of persons are required to produce "papers" to qualify to "use" the rights bestowed on all men.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "anarchy rules" We are merely pointing out how a seemingly innocuous rule can slowly, and without much notice, for seemingly good reasons, erode an inalienable right, down to a mere "privilege" in the minds of some.

Just look at the staggering number of rules, laws, regulations, ordinances, and taxes that are tied to freely traveling, and owning a firearm. Both are basic human rights, but those rights sit in the acid bath of "public safety".

[PT111]

“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the constitutional guarantees of which the citizen not be deprived without due process of law.” Berberian v. Lussier, 139 A.2d 869, 872; 87 R.I. 226, 231 (1958). See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).

“The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

“The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.” Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972).



There we have it settled, drivers licenses are illegal and cannot be required by any state or local government. I just burned mine and am now requesting at least $100 from each member of this forum to cover my legal expenses for the SCOTUS hearing. Once I am falsley arrested and win I will sue for false arrest in order to pay each of you back at least double.

[OuTcAsT]

There we have it settled, drivers licenses are illegal and cannot be required by any state or local government. I just burned mine and am now requesting at least $100 from each member of this forum to cover my legal expenses for the SCOTUS hearing. Once I am falsley arrested and win I will sue for false arrest in order to pay each of you back at least double.


Now there is a man who is not afraid to stand in the face of tyranny!! I am in for the $100.00, just have someone PM me when your case reaches SCOTUS and it is yours. :rolleyes:


Seriously, was there a point ?

[PT111]

The point is that the requirement for a drivers license is illegal and not enforcable according to the post by Antipitas or at least that is what I got out of it. Did I read incorrectly? There are 19 cases listed there saying that.

[OuTcAsT]

Did I read incorrectly?

No, but let me point out a couple of statements that qualify the posting by Antipitas ;

This is one possible future of gun rights.

And to expand the theme a bit, I said ;

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "anarchy rules" We are merely pointing out how a seemingly innocuous rule can slowly, and without much notice, for seemingly good reasons, erode an inalienable right, down to a mere "privilege" in the minds of some.

Just look at the staggering number of rules, laws, regulations, ordinances, and taxes that are tied to freely traveling, and owning a firearm. Both are basic human rights, but those rights sit in the acid bath of "public safety".

Does that make it any more plain ?

[Al Norris]

PT111, did you or did you not voluntarily apply to your State Dept. of Motor Vehicles (or whatever your State may call it), for a license to drive? Was a gun put to your head, in order to "make" you apply?

Or did you just do it, because that's what everyone does?

The State can require anyone who makes a living driving commercially, to have a license. Same thing for the registration of commercial vehicles. The Feds can (and have) require certain licenses for interstate transport.

None of that is unconstitutional.

Nor is it unconstitutional for you, a private person, to volunteer yourself to be commercially licensed - thereby falling under the rules of your states licensing schemes.

Nor is it as easy to rid yourself of the States money scheme, once you have entered into it. It will cost you. Time, Money and lots of court appearences.

However, so as not to veer the thread beyond what it has already gone, the only point I'm trying to make, is that it would be just as easy to do the same thing with gun rights, as have been done with travel rights.

One of those first steps is mandatory training. Be it by the Feds or the State.

It's easy to rant and rave about "slippery slopes," but it's quite another to explain exactly how the "slip" is achieved. So regardless of what you think about the licensing of all drivers, the mechanism for control can be the same. It could very well be that the mandatory training for a license that is already "required," is the "slip" towards mandatory licensing of all gun owners and the registration of all guns.

That is exactly how we went from licensing of drivers and registration of vehicles of a commercial nature to those of the private citizen.

That's the "slope" of the "slip."

[YodaMage]

Freedom of religion is also a right. Do we need to re-open that can of worms as well?

[Wagonman]

I am lost, are you saying that DLs are unconstitutional?

[SteelJM1]

A drivers license isn't needed to drive. You can drive your car or what have you on your private property all you want without a license, as can your kid or dog. Once you decide to use public (i.e. state or federally maintained) roads, then you need the license to operate on them. So drivers licenses are not unconstitutional. You can walk from Cape Cod to L.A. without a license if you want. They're not infringing on your right for free travel.

;)

[riggins_83]

I support a test to verify US citizenship and non-felon status. Period, end of sentence.

+1. The basic class tells you not to wave a firearm around loaded, check to be sure it's loaded, maintain your guns, etc. If you don't have enough ambition to practice then.... perhaps it's time to start.

I'd love a nationwide CCW or at least everything but the people's republic of CA. That state just scares me! ;)

[PT111]

A drivers license isn't needed to drive. You can drive your car or what have you on your private property all you want without a license, as can your kid or dog. Once you decide to use public (i.e. state or federally maintained) roads, then you need the license to operate on them. So drivers licenses are not unconstitutional. You can walk from Cape Cod to L.A. without a license if you want. They're not infringing on your right for free travel.

I thought that Antipita's list of court decisions demonstrated that we did not need a license to drive on the public highways. That was my understanding of it.

[ImprobableJoe]

This is turning into one of those weird "Federal income taxes are unconstitutional, we don't have to pay them!" conversations, except with firearms. People who follow the anti-tax conspiracy theory, and stop paying taxes? They wind up in jail.

It is the same with firearms. You can make all sorts of claims about the legality of registration and licencing, but at the end of the day the actions of the federal government are 100% Consitutional and legally binding, unless they are later overturned. Just because something is a legal right doesn't mean that it isn't also fair game for regulations. The government created the right, and the government gets to set the limits and rules.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yeah! The government already took our cars, and they're going to come after our guns next!!

You are laughing right now; but in a dozen years when they come for your carbon-emitting, fossil-fuel guzzling SUV, you probably won't be chuckling so hard. The Government already gives preferential tax treatment to hybrid vehicles. It isn't at all far-fetched to see them treating SUVs like so-called "assault weapons" in the future and some lobbying groups are already advancing those kinds of plans right now.

However, I would love to see guns treated like cars (http://www.reason.com/news/show/31170.html). It would be the biggest deregulation of guns ever.

You see, that is one problem your little one-liner overlooks. There is currently no large organized movement of people in the media and Congress who have the total elimination of cars as their stated goal (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnobody.html); but it turns out there are lots of people in Congress and the media who feel that way.

If someone says they plan to punch you in the face and tries to do it, does it not count until they actually succeed? Should you continue to stand still on the basis that they haven't actually made contact yet?

Finally, exactly what problem is regulation solving in this case. Right now the number of accidental firearms deaths is miniscule (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html). So exactly what problem are we correcting by more regulation?

[OuTcAsT]

The government created the right,

Joe, Respectfully Sir, You could not possibly be more incorrect, and this may be the reason that this issue confuses you. The following is an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, the 'foundation' of our nation;

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 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,

A Right is not "created" or "bestowed" by a government. they do not come from Congress or Senate. They are not conferred by any court.

You are endowed with basic human rights by the same "process" ( Call it whatever you will ) that started the beating of your heart, or enabled your first breath.

A Government cannot grant rights it can only use the law to attempt to put limits or constraints on them. [The original intent was to protect them]

A right is an absolute, that is only changed, or diminished, by your (collective) allowing it to be.

For instance, the 2nd amendment does not give you the right to keep or bear arms, it merely "affirms" that right already exists (you are alive, hence you have that right) and makes it understood that government cannot change that.

Unfortunately we know that government has changed it by "rules and regulations" And that is why we are ( or at least I am ) on this forum today. because we (collectively) do not believe they (should) have the authority to do so.

You see, the concept of "rights" has somehow been "reversed" by our educational system, and been taught 180 degrees from the way it actually exists. Sadly, (public) {Read; government funded} schools do not teach this properly any longer.


and the government gets to set the limits and rules.

Question for you Joe, who is the government ? Hint: Read the red section.

[ImprobableJoe]

I know exactly what I'm saying, and I know I'm right. People are confused about rights, believe they come from some magical place in the sky. They don't: rights come from what groups of people get together and decide on. Rights aren't absolute, except where the government intervenes. Right don't exist except where the government intervenes.

All the Amendments created rights, or at least defined them into being for America. Rights don't come into being any other way. Of course, we're getting way off-topic, because to properly address the issue we'd have to go into all sorts of philosophical stuffs, theories of government, and possibly into stranger areas, like defining the word "exist."

I think I can sum it up this way: whatever your philosophical position on "rights" as an abstract concept, we live in a somewhat concrete world. In that world, and from a practical standpoint, governments create rights and the laws that govern those rights. It might not be the way you like it, but that's the way it works, and the way it has always worked. There's really no way of getting around it once you start packing bunches of people together.

[OuTcAsT]

Rights aren't absolute, except where the government intervenes. Right don't exist except where the government intervenes.

All the Amendments created rights, or at least defined them into being for America. Rights don't come into being any other way.

What you describe is the polar opposite of the Constitutional
Republic Form of governance that the United States operates on.

Again I ask, who is the government ?

Let me give you another hint, do the words "We the People"
have any significance to you ?

To make it clearer, Government does not control The "people", it remains a "servant" of the people, and exists only by our own graces, despite how it describes it's self.

If you wish to continue to be a firearms owner, for whatever purposes you do so, you need to think carefully about what you have been "taught" versus reality.

ETA: Your time here on TFL may be a great learning experience for you, if you approach things with an open mind, or you may dismiss it as some sort of kooky, fringe extremism, but the threat to your ability to defend yourself, provide food for your family, or enjoy shooting at the range is very real. I merely point this out respectfully, as a fellow firearm enthusiast. and will broach the subject no further in this thread. Apologies for the veer, seemed germane to the topic. :cool:

[ImprobableJoe]

If it makes you feel better to say "people create rights" and substitute "people" where I said "government" then that's fine... my point is the same. We decide what rights are, through the tool of government. We as a country can also change our minds, but it doesn't matter unless people/government change the laws. This isn't what I was "taught"... that's what reality actually looks like.

I don't think we're going to agree(and by that I mean "you change your mind" :D) so I suggest we sort of drop it, unless you want to discuss this privately? Otherwise, I've kind of said everything I need to on that score, and don't want to poke anyone with a sharp stick over it... and I REALLY don't want to get poked back!! :cool:

[OuTcAsT]

Deleted . Sorry double-tap

[Wagonman]

I am still lost----have all the citations I have issued for driving without a DL been unconstitutional?

Is this a state's rights federalism issue?

[OuTcAsT]

I am still lost----have all the citations I have issued for driving without a DL been unconstitutional?

Is this a state's rights federalism issue?

Yes, and Yes, however it is a bit more complicated that that, perhaps this will help clarify (or cloud further) the issue; :confused:

The most common argument that drivers licenses violate a specific constitutional provision come from the "Priviliges and Immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment {"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"}.


However, in the "Slaughterhouse Cases", 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Court held that this only applies to the rights of national citizenship, (i.e. rights explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution) or, as Justice Stevens said in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), rights that are "firmly embedded in our jurisprudence", meaning rights that have long been established.
Another argument against drivers licenses come from another part of the 14th Amendment, the part which says {"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"}.

However, as long as there is a due process of State law to require drivers licenses, and as long as the laws apply equally to everyone, drivers licenses withstand this challenge, to a degree. On the first count, the fact that a state legislature has approved the law requiring a drivers license satisfies the due process requirement.

On the second count, there might be an argument to be made that we restrict licenses to people of a certain age (somewhere between 14-16 years old), and thus violate the equal protection clause. However, this type of challenge has been consistently rejected (such as laws regulating minimum drinking age), and represents a policy decision on behalf of state legislatures, rather than a constitutionally sound principle.

Where this all ties together is that firearms rights could, and in some instances are, being regulated in the same manner. That, and the fact that not many would be predisposed to take a citation for no DL to the SCOTUS. :D

However you slice it, the right to travel freely, by whatever means, is a right none the less, the only "privilege" that one gets is the chance to participate financially, in a self-fulfilling prophecy.:rolleyes:

[Webleymkv]

Howabout this, offer firearms education in high school, like drivers ed, without making it mandatory...kinda like AZ already allows.

While I like this idea, I'd take it a step further and make it mandatory. I think something like your typical hunter safety course would be sufficient. Afterall, if the schools can teach things like the theory of evolution and sex-education that many parents find objectionable, why is safe gunhandling any different. Personally, I think the knowledge of how to safely handle a firearm is much more important than that of Darwinian theory.

Once everyone has had their safe-gunhandling class courtesy of their education, there will be no need to have a nationwide CCW class.

[Mello2u]

The government should not set any standards to issue a nationwide conceal carry permit if the person belongs to the class of citizens that are adult, are not convicted violent felons, and have not been adjudicated mentally incompetent.

Of course, should any person cause injury to someone in a negligent, reckless, wanton or intentional manner without justification, then they should be held legally responsible and pay the appropriate penalty whether civil or criminal.

[ImprobableJoe]

While I like this idea, I'd take it a step further and make it mandatory. I think something like your typical hunter safety course would be sufficient. Afterall, if the schools can teach things like the theory of evolution and sex-education that many parents find objectionable, why is safe gunhandling any different. Personally, I think the knowledge of how to safely handle a firearm is much more important than that of Darwinian theory.

Once everyone has had their safe-gunhandling class courtesy of their education, there will be no need to have a nationwide CCW class.

Yeah, I mean... if the government dares teach reality-based biology and sex-ed, as crazy as it is to teach scientific facts, they had damned well better teach gun stuffs! :cool:

I'm all for firearm classes in schools, because it certainly fits in with my position of firearm licencing being roughly equivalent to drivers licences. Sounds fine to me... but do people here reject basic science that includes the fact of evolution? Really?

[Webleymkv]

Yeah, I mean... if the government dares teach reality-based biology and sex-ed, as crazy as it is to teach scientific facts, they had damned well better teach gun stuffs!

I'm all for firearm classes in schools, because it certainly fits in with my position of firearm licencing being roughly equivalent to drivers licences. Sounds fine to me... but do people here reject basic science that includes the fact of evolution? Really?

When in my post did I ever reject science? My point is that if schools can teach things like evolution and sex-ed that many people find objectionable, why should firearms safety be some sort of special taboo? What I'm getting at is that there is a double standard: someone who objects to their child being taught a theory they don't believe in is some sort of reactionery zealot whose opinions should be ignored, but someone who objects to their child being taught how to safely handle a relatively common item is a prudent parent whose opinion should be taken very seriously.

[OuTcAsT]

When in my post did I ever reject science? My point is that if schools can teach things like evolution and sex-ed that many people find objectionable, why should firearms safety be some sort of special taboo? What I'm getting at is that there is a double standard: someone who objects to their child being taught a theory they don't believe in

* Sound of large can of worms being opened in background*

[Al Norris]

... but do people here reject basic science that includes the fact of evolution? Really?
The simple answer is: Yes. There are people that reject the Origin of Species. And Yes, there are people that fume over sex education in public schools. And Yes, there are people who post here that fall into into one or both categories.

This should come as no surprise to any student of human nature.

Going any further into this area, involves belief systems and/or faith and/or religion. Those are areas that are out of bounds for discussion on TFL. They are also off topic for this thread.

Let's not go there. <-- That's not a suggestion, btw.

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ImprobaleJoe
... but do people here reject basic science that includes the fact of evolution? Really?

The simple answer is: Yes. There are people that reject the Origin of Species. And Yes, there are people that fume over sex education in public schools. And Yes, there are people who post here that fall into into one or both categories.

This should come as no surprise to any student of human nature.

Going any further into this area, involves belief systems and/or faith and/or religion. Those are areas that are out of bounds for discussion on TFL. They are also off topic for this thread.

Let's not go there. <-- That's not a suggestion, btw.

Just so that there isn't any confusion, it was not and is not my intention to start a debate about evolution or sex-education. I was merely using them as examples of how the finding of a certain subject as objectionable or offensive does not make sufficient grounds for banning its teaching.

[PT111]

Just remember that certain words will cause a reaction is some people just like seeing a gun will cause a reaction in some. It does not matter what context you use those words in someone will get upset and offended especially if used by certain people. For instance there is one certain word that will get many people fired for using it one time but others can use it all day and everyone witll laugh.

I am beginning tho think that shooter education is starting to fall into that category.