TN Legislature Gun Bills

[300winmag]

HB0040 would make the CONCEALING of a handgun without a permit illegal VS presently it is illegal to carry a firearm openly or concealed without a permit.  That would put us in line with states like Kentucky and Louisiana where you can openly carry without a permit but if you choose to conceal you need a permit.

SB0131 seems to be a more comprehensive bill that covers various aspects of weapons code.  There are a lot of positive points in this bill.

1.  Basically if you are legal to possess a firearm you can carry it openly or concealed without a permit.

2.  The school weapons law is changed from prohibiting weapons at all public and private K-12 schools and colleges to just public K-12 schools.   From what I'm reading private schools can stick up signs and it would still be a felony at that private school to carry, even with a permit.  The change also makes the school weapons law apply just to the property owned or operated by the school....not the present mess of a situation where you can get a felony charge wherever there is a school activity say at the local park or theater.

3.  The whole park weapons law is deleted.

4.  Anyone can store a firearm in a vehicle parked in any location, such as school property, without worry of criminal prosecution VS situation now where you have to have a permit just to store firearms in a vehicle parked at a school or 'posted' property.

5.  It looks like the 'no guns' sign law would be modified and require a local or state agency to hold public hearings before a building is posted 'no guns'.

 

My view is these are both really good bills.  I honestly would just go ahead and delete/modify the 'no guns' sign law to remove the criminal weapons charge and if I was really ambitious just totally removing the whole schools weapons law or providing an exception for people with permits on K-12 public school property.

I would be concerned that if you have either constitutional or open carry w/o permit legalized, you're going to have a TON of no guns signs that could hit people with weapons charges.  I'd be proactive and remove that 'no guns' sign weapons charge from the code. 

 

[jughead]

remove criminal penalty would be more benefit  than anything those yo-yos in nashville will probably do  everything they seem to do now is just feel good legislature

[Sunfish]

It should not be a crime to have a handgun whether it is concealed or not. Liberty is being defeated by these so called people control laws. Permits imho are a blessing with a fee attached. I'm quite blessed already and will not be seeking any additional ones.

[chances R]

One generally carries a weapon for the safety of themselves and family.  Without training you are doing just the opposite plus endangering the public.  Carrying a handgun is a huge responsibility that few take seriously enough to take real training.  A carry class simply exposes one to applicable laws and is not firearms training.  To carry and not train not only is risky to your health but your freedom.  Mess up and possibly lose your freedom and spend your life in jail away from your family is not a good outcome.

[tnhawk]

1 hour ago, chances R said:

One generally carries a weapon for the safety of themselves and family.  Without training you are doing just the opposite plus endangering the public.  Carrying a handgun is a huge responsibility that few take seriously enough to take real training.  A carry class simply exposes one to applicable laws and is not firearms training.  To carry and not train not only is risky to your health but your freedom.  Mess up and possibly lose your freedom and spend your life in jail away from your family is not a good outcome.

I keep a file showing training and range receipts should I ever need to prove to a jury that I have trained and practiced in a responsible manner to maintain or increase my skill level.

Edited January 19, 2017 by tnhawk

[chances R]

3 minutes ago, tnhawk said:

I keep a file showing training and range receipts should I ever need to prove to a jury that I have trained and practiced in a responsible manner to maintain or increase my skill level.

I recommend everyone do this.  Also a good source/reference for expert witnesses if needed.  And hopefully, like your firearm, never needed.

[JAB]

8 hours ago, tnhawk said:

I keep a file showing training and range receipts should I ever need to prove to a jury that I have trained and practiced in a responsible manner to maintain or increase my skill level.

Overzealous prosecutor: So, then, Mr. tnhawk, you have spent a great deal of time, energy and money training and building skills with your firearms?

tnhawk: Correct.

Overzealous prosecutor: Interesting.  Then perhaps you can explain to the court why someone with your obviously high level of skill and proficiency with a firearm chose to shoot the deceased three times in the chest, killing him, rather than using those skills to shoot him in the leg or arm, stopping him from attacking you but giving him a much greater chance of surviving?

tnhawk:  I responded as I have been trained.

Overzealous prosecutor: Really?  You have spent all of that time and money training to shoot someone in the chest three times at close range?  I would think that someone who went to the amount of effort that you have would want to train to avoid killing in a situation where you believed it necessary to use your firearm.  Have you really been training to be able to use a firearm more safely and proficiently or have you, in fact, been training to simply become more proficient at killing?

tnhawk: I have trained to stop the threat, not expressly to kill.

Overzealous prosecutor:  Well, sir, if 'stop the threat' means shooting someone three times in the chest at close range then it sounds, to me, as if 'training to stop the threat' is really just a euphemism for 'training to kill someone.'

 

I know, over the top, doesn't take into account that the defending lawyer would hopefully find many ways to object to the line of questioning (which still doesn't wipe it from the minds of jurors) and not very likely to happen in Tennessee in the first place but, unfortunately, it is my understanding that similar questions have been raised in other states in shootings by police.  I could see a prosecutor (or a lawyer in a civil suit) using or trying to use a similar idea in a trial against a non-officer.  It's kind of a crap shoot, I guess.  As chances R said, hopefully none of us ever need to use our firearms and end up in a position to find out.

Edited January 19, 2017 by JAB

[m16ty]

5 hours ago, JAB said:

Overzealous prosecutor: So, then, Mr. tnhawk, you have spent a great deal of time, energy and money training and building skills with your firearms?

tnhawk: Correct.

Overzealous prosecutor: Interesting.  Then perhaps you can explain to the court why someone with your obviously high level of skill and proficiency with a firearm chose to shoot the deceased three times in the chest, killing him, rather than using those skills to shoot him in the leg or arm, stopping him from attacking you but giving him a much greater chance of surviving?

tnhawk:  I responded as I have been trained.

Overzealous prosecutor: Really?  You have spent all of that time and money training to shoot someone in the chest three times at close range?  I would think that someone who went to the amount of effort that you have would want to train to avoid killing in a situation where you believed it necessary to use your firearm.  Have you really been training to be able to use a firearm more safely and proficiently or have you, in fact, been training to simply become more proficient at killing?

tnhawk: I have trained to stop the threat, not expressly to kill.

Overzealous prosecutor:  Well, sir, if 'stop the threat' means shooting someone three times in the chest at close range then it sounds, to me, as if 'training to stop the threat' is really just a euphemism for 'training to kill someone.'

 

I know, over the top, doesn't take into account that the defending lawyer would hopefully find many ways to object to the line of questioning (which still doesn't wipe it from the minds of jurors) and not very likely to happen in Tennessee in the first place but, unfortunately, it is my understanding that similar questions have been raised in other states in shootings by police.  I could see a prosecutor (or a lawyer in a civil suit) using or trying to use a similar idea in a trial against a non-officer.  It's kind of a crap shoot, I guess.  As chances R said, hopefully none of us ever need to use our firearms and end up in a position to find out.

They could say just the opposite if you had no training. Bottom line is if you find yourself in grave danger (as Col Jeesep says "is there any other kind?") do what you have to do and let the chips fall where they may.  You will more than likely face a civil suit and may be charged with a crime. During court they will throw everything at you and try to present you in a bad light, whatever the circumstances are. Don't worry too much about it, just remember the s**t storm is just starting after the shooting, no amount of training or lack thereof is going to stop that.

 

To the original post, I'm not so sure I want to see the permits go away. I just think it very well could backfire with lots more businesses posting and restrict other public places. Kind of like letting 18 year old vets get a permit. I'm sure the lawmakers had good intentions but the net result is placing restrictions (due to other states not recognizing TN permits) on most permit holders. I'd be willing to bet that law hurt more permit holders than it helped.  

[tnhawk]

13 hours ago, JAB said:

Overzealous prosecutor: So, then, Mr. tnhawk, you have spent a great deal of time, energy and money training and building skills with your firearms?

tnhawk: Correct.

Overzealous prosecutor: Interesting.  Then perhaps you can explain to the court why someone with your obviously high level of skill and proficiency with a firearm chose to shoot the deceased three times in the chest, killing him, rather than using those skills to shoot him in the leg or arm, stopping him from attacking you but giving him a much greater chance of surviving?

tnhawk:  I responded as I have been trained.

Overzealous prosecutor: Really?  You have spent all of that time and money training to shoot someone in the chest three times at close range?  I would think that someone who went to the amount of effort that you have would want to train to avoid killing in a situation where you believed it necessary to use your firearm.  Have you really been training to be able to use a firearm more safely and proficiently or have you, in fact, been training to simply become more proficient at killing?

tnhawk: I have trained to stop the threat, not expressly to kill.

Overzealous prosecutor:  Well, sir, if 'stop the threat' means shooting someone three times in the chest at close range then it sounds, to me, as if 'training to stop the threat' is really just a euphemism for 'training to kill someone.'

 

I know, over the top, doesn't take into account that the defending lawyer would hopefully find many ways to object to the line of questioning (which still doesn't wipe it from the minds of jurors) and not very likely to happen in Tennessee in the first place but, unfortunately, it is my understanding that similar questions have been raised in other states in shootings by police.  I could see a prosecutor (or a lawyer in a civil suit) using or trying to use a similar idea in a trial against a non-officer.  It's kind of a crap shoot, I guess.  As chances R said, hopefully none of us ever need to use our firearms and end up in a position to find out.

The advise to keep training records was given by a high ranking member of local law enforcement.  I also believe having insurance is a good idea, but I hope I never have the need to use it.

[JayC]

On 1/19/2017 at 6:53 AM, chances R said:

One generally carries a weapon for the safety of themselves and family.  Without training you are doing just the opposite plus endangering the public.  Carrying a handgun is a huge responsibility that few take seriously enough to take real training.  A carry class simply exposes one to applicable laws and is not firearms training.  To carry and not train not only is risky to your health but your freedom.  Mess up and possibly lose your freedom and spend your life in jail away from your family is not a good outcome.

This statement just doesn't meet up with the FACTS.  While I agree training is a good thing, the fact is that every state except for 1 (GA) that touches TN allows unlicensed carry with no training, some of the states that touch TN allowed licensed carry with no serious training.  Where are the incidents of blood running in the streets in these other states, our population is not significantly different from those states, so why do you think it would be different here.

I'll leave you with one other little fact that most people don't know, police officers are 5+ times more likely to kill an innocent person in a self defense shooting than your average citizen.  Police Officers receive significant training both in law and in firearms, yet their ability to hit bad guys during a justified shooting is much lower than criminals and the general population.

Training isn't everything, and shouldn't be a government requirement to protect yourself, full stop.

Edited January 23, 2017 by JayC

[chances R]

JayC you have your "FACTS" but I don't think one can argue with reason any one of the statements I gave.  I never mentioned anything about mandated training.  In fact, IMO, none of the mandatory training by any state would be sufficient. Your police example is case in point.  Training is an ongoing process, not an endpoint.  I have seen hundreds of shooters and few with the gun-handling proficiency that would be desired in a public self-defense situation.  I would venture a guess that the majority of permit holders don't practice once a year, and fewer still study the law and aftermath actions of a shooting.  The 'blood in the streets' concept is understood, the exception would be it only matters if it is your blood or caused by one of your bullets.

 

[JayC]

1 hour ago, chances R said:

JayC you have your "FACTS" but I don't think one can argue with reason any one of the statements I gave.  I never mentioned anything about mandated training.  In fact, IMO, none of the mandatory training by any state would be sufficient. Your police example is case in point.  Training is an ongoing process, not an endpoint.  I have seen hundreds of shooters and few with the gun-handling proficiency that would be desired in a public self-defense situation.  I would venture a guess that the majority of permit holders don't practice once a year, and fewer still study the law and aftermath actions of a shooting.  The 'blood in the streets' concept is understood, the exception would be it only matters if it is your blood or caused by one of your bullets.

We're talking about a proposed law that would allow law abiding citizens to carry without jumping through any hops, and you complain that lack of training is a reason why this proposed law isn't a good thing.  I'm pointing out that just isn't true.

2 years ago we allowed handgun carry in a vehicle by any law abiding citizen over 18, can you cite a single example of a questionable shooting because of that change in the law?  What makes you think this change would be any different.

Of course if somebody asks me about purchasing a firearm for self defense, then first thing I explain is training is key, but the fact is the amount of training MOST people need to protect themselves from bad guys is keep your meat hook off the trigger until you want it to go bang, and the death comes out this end.  That is the GREAT equalizer of firearms, very little training, and you're good to go for most common self defense situations.

Heaven forbid any of us are forced to use our pistol for self defense someday, but the reality is most of the time, there is going to be little question who is trying to do you harm, and the distance to the target is going to be short enough that aim is likely not going to matter so much as point shooting.  Training and education are really for those 'extreme' cases that we as otherwise law abiding citizens are rarely going to come into contact with.

Training and education is important, get as much of both as you can afford in time and money, but don't let a lack of either of those things keep you from carrying a firearm to protect yourself and the one's you love whenever you can legally.

[gregintenn]

I'm guessing mandatory training is a lot more popular idea among those who provide it as a means of income than it is among the general population.

[JayC]

13 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

I'm guessing mandatory training is a lot more popular idea among those who provide it as a means of income than it is among the general population.

Agreed, corporate welfare for ranges, and firearms instructors.

[chances R]

34 minutes ago, JayC said:

 

...Of course if somebody asks me about purchasing a firearm for self defense, then first thing I explain is training is key, but the fact is the amount of training MOST people need to protect themselves from bad guys is keep your meat hook off the trigger until you want it to go bang, and the death comes out this end.  That is the GREAT equalizer of firearms, very little training, and you're good to go for most common self defense situations.

Heaven forbid any of us are forced to use our pistol for self defense someday, but the reality is most of the time, there is going to be little question who is trying to do you harm, and the distance to the target is going to be short enough that aim is likely not going to matter so much as point shooting.  Training and education are really for those 'extreme' cases that we as otherwise law abiding citizens are rarely going to come into contact with....

Thanks for making my point.  The responsibility is way more complicated.  One carries a gun 99.99% of the time, maybe 100% and never using it for SD.  It is those times that weapon security, not muzzling yourself or someone else, child accident/death, property damage, etc is an issue.  Some instances never making the news.  Point shooting SD incidents still have an extremely poor hit rate, shoot through, property damage, and self inflicted GSW still may and do happen.  Then not to mention the legal aftermath.  On occasion a very black and white justifiable SD shooting occurs, but a lot of time it is not that clear and simple.  Education is a necessity whether one chooses to do so is the question of responsibility, not government mandates, but the HCP class is just the tip of the iceberg.

1 minute ago, JayC said:

Agreed, corporate welfare for ranges, and firearms instructors.

Sure to a point, but realize laws came first that permitted HCP and thus the need for training programs developed by the state. Prior early 90's  it was purely political favor for the most part to get authorized carry, more expensive and limited.  FYI, personally I do get paid when teaching a course, but not my primary job. The first couple of years I did it without compensation just because I enjoy teaching and felt the need to 'pay it forward' for those that had shared and helped me along the way. 

 

[JayC]

1 hour ago, chances R said:

Thanks for making my point.  The responsibility is way more complicated.  One carries a gun 99.99% of the time, maybe 100% and never using it for SD.  It is those times that weapon security, not muzzling yourself or someone else, child accident/death, property damage, etc is an issue.  Some instances never making the news.  Point shooting SD incidents still have an extremely poor hit rate, shoot through, property damage, and self inflicted GSW still may and do happen.  Then not to mention the legal aftermath.  On occasion a very black and white justifiable SD shooting occurs, but a lot of time it is not that clear and simple.  Education is a necessity whether one chooses to do so is the question of responsibility, not government mandates, but the HCP class is just the tip of the iceberg.

Sure to a point, but realize laws came first that permitted HCP and thus the need for training programs developed by the state. Prior early 90's  it was purely political favor for the most part to get authorized carry, more expensive and limited.  FYI, personally I do get paid when teaching a course, but not my primary job. The first couple of years I did it without compensation just because I enjoy teaching and felt the need to 'pay it forward' for those that had shared and helped me along the way. 

 

We're just going to have to agree to disagree...  The reality is very few self defense uses of a firearm by a citizen results in these bad outcomes you describe.  We don't see news reports from other states in our region who don't have training requirements for law abiding citizens to carry firearms for personal protection.  

I'd suggest reading this paper on the subject, it paints a very stark picture how little training buys you on the range - http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf

And we know how bad the results drop in real world shootings, NYPD scoring a 18% hit rate in real life shootings.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

2 hours ago, gregintenn said:

I'm guessing mandatory training is a lot more popular idea among those who provide it as a means of income than it is among the general population.

 

I get so freakin' sick of hearing this crap....

Do some research on the Kruger-Dunning effect and you'll see why we think that people are better off having some training in safe gunhandling. It essentially states that the less people know the more they THINK they know and the more they do know the more they realize they don't know everything. So essentially the untrained think they know everything and act as if they do. They simply do not know how much they don't know. The trained people realize they don't know it all and act accordingly. THAT is why people who have extensive training backgrounds recommend people get some training.

Having seen literally thousands of people shoot at public ranges and in HCP classes and having seen hundreds of people who have had training handle guns and shoot I have a pretty firm conviction based on those experiences as to who I'd rather have walking the streets armed when I and my friends and loved ones could be down range.

I guess learning to swim never saved a life and is a useless endeavor and only serves to line the pockets of those who provide swimming instruction ???? 

Edited January 23, 2017 by Cruel Hand Luke

[wawoodwa]

Overzealous prosecutor: So, then, Mr. tnhawk, you have spent a great deal of time, energy and money training and building skills with your firearms?

tnhawk: Correct.

Overzealous prosecutor: Interesting.  Then perhaps you can explain to the court why someone with your obviously high level of skill and proficiency with a firearm chose to shoot the deceased three times in the chest, killing him, rather than using those skills to shoot him in the leg or arm, stopping him from attacking you but giving him a much greater chance of surviving?

tnhawk:  I responded as I have been trained.

Overzealous prosecutor: Really?  You have spent all of that time and money training to shoot someone in the chest three times at close range?  I would think that someone who went to the amount of effort that you have would want to train to avoid killing in a situation where you believed it necessary to use your firearm.  Have you really been training to be able to use a firearm more safely and proficiently or have you, in fact, been training to simply become more proficient at killing?

tnhawk: I have trained to stop the threat, not expressly to kill.

Overzealous prosecutor:  Well, sir, if 'stop the threat' means shooting someone three times in the chest at close range then it sounds, to me, as if 'training to stop the threat' is really just a euphemism for 'training to kill someone.'

 

I know, over the top, doesn't take into account that the defending lawyer would hopefully find many ways to object to the line of questioning (which still doesn't wipe it from the minds of jurors) and not very likely to happen in Tennessee in the first place but, unfortunately, it is my understanding that similar questions have been raised in other states in shootings by police.  I could see a prosecutor (or a lawyer in a civil suit) using or trying to use a similar idea in a trial against a non-officer.  It's kind of a crap shoot, I guess.  As chances R said, hopefully none of us ever need to use our firearms and end up in a position to find out.

Defense Attorney: Redirect Your Honor?

Now tnhawk, when you train, do you fire your firearm into the air, as to practice scaring the assailant?

Tnhawk; No ma'am.

Defense Attorney: And why is that?

Tnhawk: That would be very unsafe. The projectile is uncontrolled and could come back to ground anywhere.

Defense Attorney: Anywhere, and injure or kill someone?

Tnhawk: Yes ma'am.

Defense Attorney: So firing your firearm without regard to where the bullet may end up is not a best practice?

Tnhawk: No ma'am. I am responsible for every projectile that leaves my firearm. To fire without regard to where the projectile may travel is highly irresponsible at best.

Defense Attorney: As you fired three rounds, and each entered and stopped in the assailant, did any of those rounds cause any injury to any innocent bystanders?

Tnhawk: No ma'am.

Defense Attorney: If you would have aimed for an arm or leg, and missed, what would have happened?

Tnhawk: I don't know ma'am. It would have continued on its trajectory.

Defense Attorney: And possibly injure or kill an innocent bystander?

Tnhawk: Possibly.

Defense Attorney: Is the reason why you train, by firing your firearm into the center mass of an assailant, only to ensure the stoppage of the assailant and to protect innocent bystanders that may be nearby?

Tnhawk: Yes ma'am.

Defense Attorney: Was there ever an option, considering the safety of innocents nearby and beyond the assailant, of shooting elsewhere than in the center of the assailant's chest?

Tnhawk: No ma'am

Defense Attorney: Thank you Tnhawk. Defense rests.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gregintenn]

1 hour ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

 

I get so freakin' sick of hearing this crap....

Do some research on the Kruger-Dunning effect and you'll see why we think that people are better off having some training in safe gunhandling. It essentially states that the less people know the more they THINK they know and the more they do know the more they realize they don't know everything. So essentially the untrained think they know everything and act as if they do. They simply do not know how much they don't know. The trained people realize they don't know it all and act accordingly. THAT is why people who have extensive training backgrounds recommend people get some training.

Having seen literally thousands of people shoot at public ranges and in HCP classes and having seen hundreds of people who have had training handle guns and shoot I have a pretty firm conviction based on those experiences as to who I'd rather have walking the streets armed when I and my friends and loved ones could be down range.

I guess learning to swim never saved a life and is a useless endeavor and only serves to line the pockets of those who provide swimming instruction ???? 

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say. Making it a LAW is my problem. It isn't law one has to pay for swimming lessons. Firearms training shouldn't be either.

[chances R]

2 hours ago, gregintenn said:

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say. Making it a LAW is my problem. It isn't law one has to pay for swimming lessons. Firearms training shouldn't be either.

My swimming in public is of no threat to the public (unless skinny dipping)  my carrying a handgun and firing it may have grave consequences.  As CHL said, if me or my family is downrange, I prefer someone has training.  People simply don't know what they don't know and that is unconscious ignorance.  Knowing you don't know and not training is conscious ignorance.....

[JayC]

4 hours ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

 

I get so freakin' sick of hearing this crap....

Do some research on the Kruger-Dunning effect and you'll see why we think that people are better off having some training in safe gunhandling. It essentially states that the less people know the more they THINK they know and the more they do know the more they realize they don't know everything. So essentially the untrained think they know everything and act as if they do. They simply do not know how much they don't know. The trained people realize they don't know it all and act accordingly. THAT is why people who have extensive training backgrounds recommend people get some training.

Having seen literally thousands of people shoot at public ranges and in HCP classes and having seen hundreds of people who have had training handle guns and shoot I have a pretty firm conviction based on those experiences as to who I'd rather have walking the streets armed when I and my friends and loved ones could be down range.

I guess learning to swim never saved a life and is a useless endeavor and only serves to line the pockets of those who provide swimming instruction ???? 

But the evidence doesn't back up your personal experience, somehow when you place average citizen X in a self defense shooting situation, they perform as well or better than the police officer who have 60x to 1000x more formal training.  Studies advocating for more law enforcement training using scientific methods show that the differences between experience levels have virtually no impact on shooting ability between Expert, Intermediate and Novice shooters is almost the same at the 3-15 ft engagement distances, only do you see significant difference when you go beyond 21 ft, which as we all know very few self defense shootings take place that far out.

As for the safety argument, that somehow more range time decrease ND's and overall safely handling firearms, show me the research because I for sure can't find it.  The information I can find on the subject seems to suggest that unintentional firearm fatalities are down across the board, yet over the last 20 years firearms ownership and carry has exploded and in many states there is no required 'safety course' to carry a firearm (the majority of states today).  Clearly some safety programs are working and are effective, Eddie the Eagle and similar education by parents is having an impact of children under the age of 10.  

But that is a far cry from saying that mandatory training for law abiding adults should be a requirement to carry a firearm for protection.

Cruel, the fact remains that ranges and firearms instructors gave a VESTED interest in keep the status quo...  It doesn't mean they're acting on that vested interest, but it sure seems odd they're the one's who keep arguing for the same or more training yet can't cite a single research paper that proves their point, that a simple video, or hand out with the rules of gun safety doesn't provide nearly the same impact as 8 hours of wasting your time trying not to fall asleep.

 

[lansa_coder]

I have taken the training twice because I moved out of state a few years ago and my out of state permit expired 6 months before I could find the time to attend the 8 hour course.  I have 5 young children.  I can tell you that I do NOT remember anything worthwhile from either class.  Not that it was good.  What I do remember is my training from childhood and handling firearms on a daily basis.  Yes, don't put your finger on the trigger if you don't want it to go off.  Don't point it at anything you wouldn't want to shoot.  Leave it in the holster unless you have a reason to remove it.  Keep it out of unauthorized hands.  Sure there are plenty of people that are not Safe with a gun, but an 8 hour class will not make them any safer than they were before, unless it is their first time around guns.  Those of us who grew up with them, are either untrainable anyway  or already more than qualified.  For me it comes down to a God given right to defend oneself.  The constitution only reiterates the fact that the right is already ours.  Enough said.  Stop trampling on my rights or anyone else's.  they screw up, punish them.

BTW. I scored 100% on the both tests and had 100% on both shooting scores.  

Edited January 24, 2017 by lansa_coder