TN OC bill passed Senate

[E4 No More]

doesnt answer the question I asked....did you read post 71?? that should give you an idea of what my thoughts on 2A are...

Actually, I did...sort-of. "Since the Feds had no standing army they called militias from the individual states, and the states formed militias."

 

States formed militias at the request of the feds for the most part.

[Guest semiautots]

Actually, I did...sort-of. "Since the Feds had no standing army they called militias from the individual states, and the states formed militias."

 

States formed militias at the request of the feds for the most part.

 

Me thinks you should do a wee bit o'reading of that time.  The Feds did have a standing army at this time (remember General Washington?).  The militias were looked down upon due to their lack of training and thier ability to quit at any time.  And it was not just states that had militias, as there were plenty of local militias. 

 

And the word "regulated" meant that the citizen was practiced and proficient with his arms.  Who was the "militia".  Every able bodied man between 18 and 55 years of age.

 

http://www.historyisfun.org/Militia-in-the-Revolutionary-War.htm

[btq96r]

And the word "regulated" meant that the citizen was practiced and proficient with his arms.  Who was the "militia".  Every able bodied man between 18 and 55 years of age.

 

It's a rare day indeed when semiautos and I are in agreement, but he has the right of it here.  Once upon a time, that's the way things were.

[E4 No More]

Me thinks you should do a wee bit o'reading of that time.  The Feds did have a standing army at this time (remember General Washington?).  The militias were looked down upon due to their lack of training and thier ability to quit at any time.  And it was not just states that had militias, as there were plenty of local militias. 

 

And the word "regulated" meant that the citizen was practiced and proficient with his arms.  Who was the "militia".  Every able bodied man between 18 and 55 years of age.

 

http://www.historyisfun.org/Militia-in-the-Revolutionary-War.htm

You mean collegiate level history classes weren't enough, and that I should rely on a website for my information? No thanks.

 

Although I'm no history major nor an armchair historian, I recall that the Continental Army had to be formed, (since there was no standing army as I referenced before), and that was a "wee" bit difficult since they didn't have the funds to do so. The army didn't magically appear when the rebellion started after all. State militias indeed were looked down upon, but also had to be formed and were used as harassment and delay while the army formed.

 

But before the Constitution was written is really a moot point. Read post Revolutionary War history to see what the fathers meant. Power was in the hands of the states; not the feds since what regular army there might be was quite small in numbers due to money, and they were used for delaying action while the states ramped up. For example, by the start of of the Civil War the regular army was quite small, and they had to build it via the state militias hence their carrying of their state names in their units, and mobilizing and training them took time.

 

Regardless, the 2nd is not dependent upon the state militias, nor on imaginary, mandatory training standards as indicated by others in this thread.

 

EDIT: Kind of hard to feed your family if you weren't practiced and proficient with your weapon. If there were standards mandated by the states in a "well-regulated" manner then there would also have been caliber standardization as well. Since that wasn't the case they failed at that mandate.

Edited April 10, 2014 by SWJewellTN

[Guest semiautots]

You mean collegiate level history classes weren't enough, and that I should rely on a website for my information? No thanks.

 

Although I'm no history major nor an armchair historian, I recall that the Continental Army had to be formed, (since there was no standing army as I referenced before), and that was a "wee" bit difficult since they didn't have the funds to do so. The army didn't magically appear when the rebellion started after all. State militias indeed were looked down upon, but also had to be formed and were used as harassment and delay while the army formed.

 

But before the Constitution was written is really a moot point. Read post Revolutionary War history to see what the fathers meant. Power was in the hands of the states; not the feds since what regular army there might be was quite small in numbers due to money, and they were used for delaying action while the states ramped up. For example, by the start of of the Civil War the regular army was quite small, and they had to build it via the state militias hence their carrying of their state names in their units, and mobilizing and training them took time.

 

Regardless, the 2nd is not dependent upon the state militias, nor on imaginary, mandatory training standards as indicated by others in this thread.

 

EDIT: Kind of hard to feed your family if you weren't practiced and proficient with your weapon. If there were standards mandated by the states in a "well-regulated" manner then there would also have been caliber standardization as well. Since that wasn't the case they failed at that mandate.

 

If you'll remember from your college history courses, the Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1789.  The Revolutionary War ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783.  Yes, there was a standing army, commanded by George Washington, before the 2nd Amendment was written or ratified.  The U.S. Army's birthday was in June, 1775.  It has been an army since that date.

There were many "city dwellers" in 1776.  About 5% of citizens (slaves excluded) lived in urban areas.  The population at the time was about 2.5 million.  So about 125,000 were city dwellers.

Your premise on the 2nd Amendment is correct, in that the militia clause had nothing to do with the right.  It merely stated that the U.S. needed a quality, trained populace to protect the country and that it was every man's right to possess the means to go to war.

[mikegideon]

doesnt answer the question I asked....did you read post 71?? that should give you an idea of what my thoughts on 2A are...

 

[media] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50 [/media]

[jacob]

 

Regardless, the 2nd is not dependent upon the state militias, nor on imaginary, mandatory training standards as indicated by others in this thread.

 

EDIT: Kind of hard to feed your family if you weren't practiced and proficient with your weapon. If there were standards mandated by the states in a "well-regulated" manner then there would also have been caliber standardization as well. Since that wasn't the case they failed at that mandate.

no one in the thread has asserted that "mandatory training standards" should be a requisite for laying claim to 2A rights. the only thing I have read is that if someone considers carrying a gun in public that they should invest time in training firearm operation/proficiency and educate themselves in the firearms laws of the state(s) that they would be carrying a firearm.  while I agree that gov't should not mandate "training" as qualification to exercise the 2A right, I do feel that it is OUR  obligation as gun owners to encourage others to constantly practice and train to become proficient in handling and shooting firearms, in whatever discipline we choose (i.e. self defense, target shooting, hunting, etc). 

 

I will say that while I would possibly feel a little uncomfortable knowing that some "gomer" could carry a gun thinking he is clint eastwood, that by no means should prevent him from being able to exercise that right if he so chooses.  the thing to remember is that rights have responsibilities, and carrying a gun is a BIG responsibility...

[jacob]

[media] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50 [/media]

that's a fairly succinct explanation...lol

[Fivestring63]

Yesterday they said that there was not fiscal impact, today they turn around and say there will, by DOS Safety Policy, be a charge of $100,000.00 as they will reprint the permit cards to read "concealed carry" only.  Seems anything they can do to kill this bill is going to be used.

 

  I could swear I seen a video of a guy being arrested in some other state for open carrying when he had a ccw. Saying his permit is for cc only and not oc. And it was a permitless open carry state. I think he won it in court.

[jacob]

doesn't make sense, but wouldn't surprise me.  if the state allows open carry and the guy is not CC, but has a permit what would be the deal?  I could see if they were CC with no CC permit...

[300winmag]

According to the news tonight, the House leadership shut down the whole open carry bill.  No floor vote.  I wonder what will happen with the whole park carry bill? 

[GKar]

Just as dead..

[E4 No More]

no one in the thread has asserted that "mandatory training standards" should be a requisite for laying claim to 2A rights. the only thing I have read is that if someone considers carrying a gun in public that they should invest time in training firearm operation/proficiency and educate themselves in the firearms laws of the state(s) that they would be carrying a firearm.  while I agree that gov't should not mandate "training" as qualification to exercise the 2A right, I do feel that it is OUR  obligation as gun owners to encourage others to constantly practice and train to become proficient in handling and shooting firearms, in whatever discipline we choose (i.e. self defense, target shooting, hunting, etc). 

 

I will say that while I would possibly feel a little uncomfortable knowing that some "gomer" could carry a gun thinking he is clint eastwood, that by no means should prevent him from being able to exercise that right if he so chooses.  the thing to remember is that rights have responsibilities, and carrying a gun is a BIG responsibility...

"no one in the thread has asserted that 'mandatory training standards' should be a requisite for laying claim to 2A rights."

 

Incorrect, unless your definition of mandatory doesn't mean something that is required.

 

     Post #26: "I also think there should be some kind of training required."

     Post #32: "I think a training requirement isn't too much to ask and would consider it as people (male and female) doing their civic duty."

     Post #67: "I think 'regulated' has that meaning in the 2nd." This was given in response to me writing that nowhere in the 2nd does it say "....as long as you have proper training."

 

And then the last post got me off onto a militia tangent. I agree that we should encourage others to train and practice as well. I disagree with people who seem to assert that if another person doesn't train/practice to their level that it somehow makes that other person unqualified to carry a weapon.

 

Personally, (and this is not to be construed to demean others that do), I see no value in spending hundreds to thousands of dollars for combat training. First, after the Marine Corps, being in LE, and martial arts, my body isn't what it used to be and could not handle that type of training. Second, the odds of me being in those types of situations at the age of 53 are way too infinitesimal. Third, my local range, (Stones River), is bulls-eye only, and it's staffed by too many A-holes and the downright dangerous individuals who certainly should go back to safety class before being on the range. Other ranges are indoor ranges that are also bulls-eye only. Come to think of it, all of the ranges carry evidence of the presence of the downright dangerous individuals being there to begin with: therefore, not the safest places to be. Fourth, since I'm no longer a LEO my job is to protect my family, and to me that means defensive tactics utilizing cover or concealment if I can, or going to the point of shielding her body with my own while I return fire. The local ranges do not facilitate that type of practice.

 

If I lived on property in the country I'd be shooting far more frequently than I do now, but I don't have that luxury. How others train/practice is up to them, but they have no justification to place their requirements on another to exercise their "God given rights." If a person fails to train to a minimal standard then the consequences are lawfully placed on them as they should be.

 

Now I'm out of this thread to go camping. You all have a great weekend.

Edited April 11, 2014 by SWJewellTN

[jacob]

Go read post# 67.

He also clarified his position in post #77 & #80....he even specified that the prefatory clause about the militia had NOTHING to do with the people's right to keep and bear arms....

[Guest Shooter00]

This was on WBIR in Knoxville this afternoon.

 

http://www.wbir.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/11/open-gun-carry-sponsor-moves-for-full-house-vote/7606221/

[Refleks]

I don't think it should be required to get training but it is most certainly advantageous for ANYONE carrying to get it as well as being well versed on the laws surrounding carrying a firearm at all.

Bingo.  We'll just have to leave it up to individual virtue though.  (Yeah, that'll go well...)

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Refleks" post="1137436" timestamp="1397261049"]Bingo. We'll just have to leave it up to individual virtue though. (Yeah, that'll go well...)[/quote] It works well enough in 30 states. The bearing of arms is an individual right. While it is important that one be well versed in the use of the arms they choose to bear, it is not place of the government to step in and compel the citizen to have training or jump through other hoops prior to exercising that natural right.

[Guest tangojuliet]

This was on WBIR in Knoxville this afternoon.

 

http://www.wbir.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/11/open-gun-carry-sponsor-moves-for-full-house-vote/7606221/

ladies and gents the just got cpr ....

[Oh Shoot]

ladies and gents the just got cpr ....

 

Reckon there's 66 votes to bring it up?

 

- OS

[Guest tangojuliet]

Reckon there's 66 votes to bring it up?

 

- OS

its an election year and their politicians so i got me a feeling 

[mikegideon]

Reckon there's 66 votes to bring it up?

 

- OS

 

If there is, I hope Harwell chokes on it.

[Guest tangojuliet]

If there is, I hope Harwell chokes on it.

indeed

[R_Bert]

Deputy Speaker McDaniel -  â€œEvery gang-banger in Memphis will end up packing. Can you imagine?”  - NO $$$$ Sherlock.  They already do.

 

http://www.memphisflyer.com/JacksonBaker/archives/2014/04/10/key-gop-leader-prophesies-gun-carry-bill-will-be-deep-sixed

[Raoul]

Virginia is an open-carry-no-permit state.  I live only 300 yards from the state line with Virginia, and half of our city is IN Virginia.  I would be glad to provide any of those "blood-in-the-streets" predictors a real-life, real-time example of how big a "NOT A CONCERN" this legislation really is.  Oh wait - that would be a 'fact', and thus incomprehensible to those morons...

We're probably neighbors. Fairmount?

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="R_Bert" post="1138247" timestamp="1397436581"]Deputy Speaker McDaniel - “Every gang-banger in Memphis will end up packing. Can you imagine?” - NO $$$$ Sherlock. They already do. [url="http://www.memphisflyer.com/JacksonBaker/archives/2014/04/10/key-gop-leader-prophesies-gun-carry-bill-will-be-deep-sixed"]http://www.memphisflyer.com/JacksonBaker/archives/2014/04/10/key-gop-leader-prophesies-gun-carry-bill-will-be-deep-sixed[/url][/quote] The real gold is in the comments. This one is my personal favorite.

"Jim was monstrous proud about it, and he got so he wouldn't hardly notice the other Memphis gang-bangers. Memphis gang-bangers would come miles to hear Jim tell about it, and he was more looked up to than any Memphis gang-banger in that country. Strange Memphis gang-bangers would stand with their mouths open and look him all over, same as if he was a wonder. Memphis gang-bangers is always talking about witches in the dark by the kitchen fire; but whenever one was talking and letting on to know all about such things, Jim would happen in and say, "Hm! What you know 'bout witches?" and that Memphis gang-banger was corked up and had to take a back seat." --Mark Twain, "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," as read by Steve McDaniel