Anti gun legislation

[Metcalf]

This is well and good, and it certainly speaks to your commitment to safe gun onwership. But, I wouldn't put too much credence into training coming from gun clubs. The type of training and testing I'd like to see mandated would ideally be administered by local law enforcement at the prospective gun owners expense.

I obtained my training outside the gun club, however the local gun club here does provide a good amount of high quality training, we also provide the range for all the local law enforcement, classes hosted here, etc. The main reason I joined was for easy in town range access. The outdoor range is about 1000' from my office.

Anyways, just wanted to clarify.

I regularly shoot with the local PD and find my skills on par with their's, in some cases more advanced. Just because you are law enforcement doesn't make you a nice safe shooter....same rules apply for civilians. Personally, I find most of the POST qualification courses that LEO types around here to be fairly simple.

Civilian shooters can be even more highly trained and more practiced than LEO or military.

Testing, qualifying, and psych evals very much so infringe on your 2nd amendment rights in my opinion. It gives an avenue for the people in charge to mandate what is 'sane'.

 

[Metcalf]

The same could be applied to psych evaluations. Why not? Who is hurt by giving up some if their time so that at least some of these crazies will be unable to obtain a gun (they are a lot easier to seriously hurt someone with then a hammer).

It is because it gives the government the power to dictate what is 'sane' and what is not. 'oh...you drive a Mercedes, you must be a Nazi'.

Do you really think that our government can come up with a fair, unbiased, and un-abused pysch test?

 

[thebrassnuckles]

the same could be applied to psych evaluations. Why not? Who is hurt by giving up some if their time so that at least some of these crazies will be unable to obtain a gun (they are a lot easier to seriously hurt someone with then a hammer).

it is because it gives the government the power to dictate what is 'sane' and what is not. 'oh...you drive a mercedes, you must be a nazi'.

do you really think that our government can come up with a fair, unbiased, and un-abused pysch test?

this

 

[kmacafee]

Case in point

"Civilian shooters can be even more highly trained and more practiced than LEO or military" -- but not usually.

When Virginia first passed its CCW, a friend of mine stopped a woman near DC for a traffic infraction. She had two kids strapped in the back. The woman reaches into her glove box for her registration, pulls a pistol out and swings it toward the officer, barrel first. When he saw the gun, he unholstered and says he came dam close to pulling the trigger. He got her out of the car and face down on the pavement until he could figure out what was going on.

She sued (and ultimately lost) for mental anguish. In the deposition, she testified that her firearms instructor had told her to put the gun on her lap when she was stopped by law enforcement. When the judge asked her is she thought that was a smart thing to do, her response was and I quote "what the hell else am I supposed to with the dam thing?".

I was at a range recently at the same time a CCW class was learning the basics. After observing several instances of downright dangerous gun handling, I left -- quickly. One woman had purchased some type of handbag that contained a hidden sleeve for her revolver. Every time she practiced pulling it, the bag caught the hammer. When I suggested that an auto might be more useful and safer, she told me that she liked the look of the one she had better.

The thought of the average person being let loose with 8 hours of firearms training leaves me terrified. In Arizona, I do not believe any is required.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Its not like we are putting people to death here. Worst case scenario is that particular person will have to appeal the ruling / not be able to own a firearm. If the test was unfair, it could be challenged through the legal system or amended through the legislative process, both tools that were provided by our founding fathers in the Constitution.

So in the interests of accomodating everyone's personal fears about creating a test that isn't fair, we will willfully endanger everyone?

 

[thebrassnuckles]

Its not like we are putting people to death here. Worst case scenario is that particular person will have to appeal the ruling / not be able to own a firearm. If the test was unfair, it could be challenged through the legal system or amended through the legislative process, both tools that were provided by our founding fathers in the Constitution.

So in the interests of accomodating everyone's personal fears about creating a test that isn't fair, we will willfully endanger everyone?

EXACTLY

because there are some folks afraid of guns are we going to endanger everyone else by limiting who can have the right to defend themselves?

 

[Metcalf]

Its not like we are putting people to death here. Worst case scenario is that particular person will have to appeal the ruling / not be able to own a firearm. If the test was unfair, it could be challenged through the legal system or amended through the legislative process, both tools that were provided by our founding fathers in the Constitution.

Great, now we need a LARGER justice system The existing one is working just peachy currently....


So in the interests of accomodating everyone's personal fears about creating a test that isn't fair, we will willfully endanger everyone?

I don't feel in danger, do you?

I'm pretty hardline about this. It follows in my staunch limited .gov beliefs, we just can't support all this financially. This is getting a little political so I will let it rest.

 

[goodtimes]

The cost of the tax stamp and the class would be less then the price of one firearm in almost any case . . .

So, only those with a certain level of expendable income are allowed to defend themselves?

 

[Mr. Leary]

EXACTLY

because there are some folks afraid of guns are we going to endanger everyone else by limiting who can have the right to defend themselves?

I would rather limit the who then the how or the what. Apart from help reduce gun crimes, these psych evals may help to increase the 36% of diagnosed mentally ill people who actually get treated. It is a relatively simple process for a psychologist to identify a crazy person such as this nutjob who opened up on those people in AZ.

Its not like we are putting people to death here. Worst case scenario is that particular person will have to appeal the ruling / not be able to own a firearm. If the test was unfair, it could be challenged through the legal system or amended through the legislative process, both tools that were provided by our founding fathers in the Constitution.

Great, now we need a LARGER justice system The existing one is working just peachy currently....


So in the interests of accomodating everyone's personal fears about creating a test that isn't fair, we will willfully endanger everyone?

I don't feel in danger, do you?

I'm pretty hardline about this. It follows in my staunch limited .gov beliefs, we just can't support all this financially. This is getting a little political so I will let it rest.

Yeah. We may have to save that avenue of discussion for a real campfire!

So, only those with a certain level of expendable income are allowed to defend themselves?

The capitalist system in which we live has already established that. Lets not pretend that we are changing anything. Guns cost money, as does everything else. Please take this as a specifically targeted statement, and not a blanket political statement.

 

[keezer37]

Classes privately administered would be easy enough. They could be accredited by the American Council on Education just like every other college class and most military schools. The institution adheres to the prescribed course curriculum, if they deviate from it, they loose their accreditation and their course is not recognized just like any other learning institution has to adhere to.

Weapons familiarization/range qualls for ownership-afternoon class.
Weapons and Tactics training for carry permits-two week course.

As far as the psych eval goes. The MMPI has been around for decades and it is not some govt thing. It is the accepted standard for psych professionals. Granted, a full blown MMPI is quite lengthy if I recall my PSY101. There would need to be a short version. Probably already exists.

I agree that you have the right to protect yourself to the extent at which you can afford to do so. Is it an infringement upon ones rights if they cannot afford a gun at all? Should WIC become WIC&G.

 

[xtatik]

This is well and good, and it certainly speaks to your commitment to safe gun onwership. But, I wouldn't put too much credence into training coming from gun clubs. The type of training and testing I'd like to see mandated would ideally be administered by local law enforcement at the prospective gun owners expense.

I obtained my training outside the gun club, however the local gun club here does provide a good amount of high quality training, we also provide the range for all the local law enforcement, classes hosted here, etc. The main reason I joined was for easy in town range access. The outdoor range is about 1000' from my office.

Anyways, just wanted to clarify.

I regularly shoot with the local PD and find my skills on par with their's, in some cases more advanced. Just because you are law enforcement doesn't make you a nice safe shooter....same rules apply for civilians. Personally, I find most of the POST qualification courses that LEO types around here to be fairly simple.

Civilian shooters can be even more highly trained and more practiced than LEO or military.

Testing, qualifying, and psych evals very much so infringe on your 2nd amendment rights in my opinion. It gives an avenue for the people in charge to mandate what is 'sane'.

All good stuff. None of these requirements in themselves deny the right of ownership to citizens who have the mental aptitude to properly demonstrate responsible ownership. I would hope we're all in favor of responsible ownership.
The whole idea of governance is challenged in your last paragraph. IMO, this is where the 2A is given way too much room and where the "slippery slope" rhetoric begins. Sometimes the arguments that guns should be un-governed by the government are at odds with reality, when in fact the very right was issued by government. The 2A wasn't immaculately conceived. An example would be a blind person. Under the current program, he clearly has the right to own a gun, same with the person with mental retardation or mental illness. The document doesn't stand alone, we ordain it...all of us as stated in the preamble.

 

[alosix]

While I don't really disagree with you're points.

when in fact the very right was issued by government. The 2A wasn't immaculately conceived.

You have this part backwards...

 

[xtatik]

As far as the psych eval goes. The MMPI has been around for decades and it is not some govt thing. It is the accepted standard for psych professionals. Granted, a full blown MMPI is quite lengthy if I recall my PSY101. There would need to be a short version. Probably already exists.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory is the standard for court-appointed psych eval's (730) currently. It takes between 1-2 hours on average, and can be administered both to the blind (may not apply here...I'd hope:Wow1 or to the illiterate. Someone questioned whether or not the government could be trusted to render a fair test. This test is precisely the test I would have in mind. It is extremely accurate. It is not a pass/fail in the usual sense. There are no right or wrong answers. Basically, you are telling the test how you're hardwired. I took it several years ago and was astounded at how well it nailed who I am.
In the context of a half-day course giving 3-1/2 hours of training, 1/2 hour written test and the remaining dedicated to this test...it doesn't seem extreme. One half day course.

 

[Metcalf]

So if there are no right or wrong answers, who determines who qualifies or doesn't? What 'type' of person should qualify to have a firearm?

 

[xtatik]

EXACTLY

because there are some folks afraid of guns are we going to endanger everyone else by limiting who can have the right to defend themselves?

This isn't the debate. We've already established here that we're not afraid of guns. In fact, I think it's probably safe to say everyone here in this discussion owns them. I don't want that right taken from me either. Some I own are heirlooms given to me by my grandfather, with all the great memories I associate to them. But, I especially don't want to lose this right if the reasoning given is because we went willy-nilly and allowed the even most incompetent in our society to easily obtain and ultimately misuse them. It's not the guns, it's gun ownership and who should be legally allowed or precluded the right within sound reason.