If the training was organized and implemented by a firearms advocacy group like the NRA or Gun Owners of ______, I wouldn’t have much of an issue. But putting it in the hands of a group of politicians who openly state that they don’t want people like me in public with a firearm, regardless of how many years of training I’ve had, is tyranny.
1 Like
But again, you/we are talking about law abiding citizens. People that are willing to comply with the law, even if those laws are over reaching and cause an unreasonable burden/deterrent. The thug on the street, the gang banger, the drug dealer, the pimp, the CRIMINALS don’t care about these or any laws. They aren’t concerned about safe gun handling, they don’t have gun safes, they’ll use theirs as the aggressor. These laws do very little to stop crime, they do a lot to limit the access of law abiding citizens.
4 Likes
There is no explicit and specific protection in the Constitution protecting the RIght of The People to operate motor vehicles on public roads.
But, I do find this comparison interesting.
I put it like this:
If gun permits were like driver licenses
*Shall issue at age 16
*Permit to carry is good nationwide, all 50 states and DC
*Essentially nowhere is off limits to carry
*You can carry your friend’s gun, even if they live in a different state
*Silencers are generally required (mufflers)
*There are no capacity restrictions (fuel tank size)
*There are no caliber/cartridge restrictions (horsepower/torque)
*There are no automatic/machine gun restrictions (automatic transmissions)
*You can be a convicted felon (convicted drunk driver, etc) and still own a gun
*No background check to buy
*No waiting period to buy
*I suppose in this comparison you would have to register the gun, but only if carried in public, not for private property, and you could carry one that was registered to someone else
7 Likes
Perhaps few point are too much, but actually this is the great idea.
For me the simplest procedure would be this:
- CCL valid for all 50 States
- mandatory basic firearm training and Gun Law overview class
I can agree with
- full auto / machine gun restriction
- carrying “friend’s” firearm restriction
This is nothing really complicated and shouldn’t be a problem for anyone who wants to possess and carry the firearm.
However, as long as politics are involved these above are my dreams only. 
1 Like
Agree to disagree.
A government mandated training/class before granting permission for the privilege of carrying a gun is a straight up infringement by my plain language reading of the Second Amendment.
I also feel like I know, based on decades of experience with millions of lawful carriers, that requiring training literally has zero impact on safety. We have many states and many millions of carriers that have, for decades, allowed carry without any training or class…and nobody, not even the most hardcore anti-Liberty anti-Freedom gun banners who want to require these things, even try to show evidence that requiring training/not requiring training has dome anything whatsoever for people’s safety.
The Right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
If you need a government permission slip first, it’s not a Right, it’s a privilege.
And remember, if there is a permit required or a class required…that means politics is involved Choosing to require training/permit, is choosing to have politics involved and is choosing to give the government control over the privilege
1 Like
Very true. And I don’t want the gov’t involved in setting the curricula, mandating who can be instructors, etc. They’ll abuse it in order to restrict our 2A rights.
On the other hand, the 2A starts out stressing the importance of “well regulated”, meaning well equipped and well trained. I’ve often stated that if the gov’t gets involved at all, it should be to provide me with ammo for training and maybe subsidize my training. Maybe they could fund a trip or two each year to Gunsite Academy?
I’m not sure how it should work exactly. But it’s an often overlooked part of the 2A and I’ve come across quite a few people at the range who clearly didn’t get proper firearms safety training. I also know that I don’t want politicians having anything to do with it. At one point in time, the CMP came about because of it and civilians were sold surplus “military” rifles so they were trained with the latest firearms rather than muskets. But now, too many politicians’ heads would explode at the thought of current military rifles being in the hands of civilians. You can’t trust those same politicians to be involved with training.
And yet, all the founders actually put in the Second Amendment, was that the Right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Why is it that even, seemingly most of the “pro gun” people, try to convince others that certain infringements are okay because they are for safety?
Ah, those infringements are for our own good and for safety. If it’s for safety, and it’s theoretically not too hard to jump through the hoops, then it’s okay.
…did I mention I have spoken to people from multiple states who literally waited over 1 year to get their “shall issue” carry permit…and there is absolutely nothing that they can do about that?
Or that people are illegal to carry because they forget to renew their permission slip in time?
We don’t need gun control laws. We really don’t
anybody see the California crack down on who can be an instructor, trying to reduce the number of available instructors/classes as yet another chokepoint in people getting permits?
Why do we want to give the government all this control?!
3 Likes
Looks we started another 2A debate stealing somebody’s thread… 
We can agree and disagree with every single argument, all depends how we look into it.
I can agree with one, which you don’t like - yes, sometimes we do need a government permission slip to exercise our rights. Why do you carry your ID? Isn’t it a permission slip given to you by the Government? It gives you a permission to worthily live in this Country… which is your Right, not a privilege.
3 Likes
Two wrongs don’t make a Right. 
There is also that darn Second Amendment which specifically and explicitly protects the RIght of The People to keep and bear arms from infringement. I recall no such specific and explicit protection for the Right to not have the ability to identify yourself.
Just say no to gun control.
This gun control is not Constitutional and it does not make us safer. It also leads to ridiculous trampling of Rights as previously discussed. Please honor the Second Amendment Rights of your fellow Americans
Edi: There is a reason I chose this for my profile/tag line/sig/whatever it is
“I believe too strongly in individual Rights and Liberties, including the Right to keep and bear arms”
I do find that even within “pro 2A” communities…I often end up opposing gun control. Most people, even those who support the 2A, do support various gun control. It’s not just you, it’s pretty common. Honestly, I have absolutely no idea how we managed to get over half of the states to permitless aka Constitutional Carry. Given how few gun owners seem to support the 2A as written, I really don’t know how it passes
1 Like
How does making it illegal to carry someone else’s firearm make anyone safer? I know it is illegal for some reason in several States but I don’t get the reasoning. Criminals are not going to follow this law and are already breaking multiple other laws when they carry firearms that used to belong to someone else.
If your firearm breaks and you have to send it in for repairs and your neighbor loans you one of their spare firearms so you don’t have to be defenseless for several weeks how is anyone made less safe?
I’m all for promoting getting as many people as possible as well trained as possible but current training requirement laws are clearly much more about restricting people’s right to carry than actually making anyone safer.
1 Like
I am not sure what Jerzee meant by that. I think he might have been agreeing with my position that those laws make no sense? Not sure.
But I intended for that to be taken in an even more broad context: People who reside in different states. I think it’s silly that, for example, if my father in law who lives out of state visits (he is licensed), it’s illegal for him to carry one of my guns out and about because it would probably seen as a transfer between residents of different states…federal no-no. It would also be illegal if he brought a gun to his daughter and gave it to her (both licensed). So silly.
2 Likes
Agree that restrictions on the temporary or permanent transfer of private property for legal purposes is a dumb idea. Especially when that private property is being used for a constitutionally protected right.
2 Likes