New open carry law??!!

[300winmag]

It's a joke that you even have to buy a permit here to keep a gun in a vehicle. 

[Worriedman]

It's a joke that you even have to buy a permit here to keep a gun in a vehicle. 

If so, I fail to see the humor in it.

[wk05]

It's a joke that you even have to buy a permit here to keep a gun in a vehicle. 

 

SB1774/HB1480 - if it passes, you won't.  Just like every other state that borders TN.  

[kevhunt80]

Better yet what are your opinions? As it sounds to me (and forgive me if I'm mistaken) that not only are you against open carry and you think that a person should be required to get a permit before they can carry concealed?  

 

Myself while I open carry rarely I've little to no problem with open carry in all most any situation.  As to requiring a permit to CC well let's just say I love AZ, AK & VT for having the forethought to NOT require a permit to CC or openly carry.....

Nope, a permit shouldn't be required.  Training should.  So come up with a way to show prove of training and you'll have my vote

[Worriedman]

Nope, a permit shouldn't be required.  Training should.  So come up with a way to show prove of training and you'll have my vote

Should those that hunt be required to prove training?  Just in weapons, or should they be tested on knowledge of the game they propose to pursue, if you deem that necessary to require.

Not too long ago I read where a high up LEO shot and killed his friend whilst turkey hunting, bet you he had a lot of "formal" training with firearms.

 

I do not remember any statutory requirement to be proficient in the use of arms to be guaranteed the right to posses them in any Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Rights I have read yet.

Can a parent teach a child the proper use and safe handling of a firearm, or does it require the State to be effective?  I am around numerous shooters between the age of 10 and 12 that I would trust with a weapon around me far more than some adults I know, and they have had no "formal" training, but they have enought sense to pour pee out of a boot with directions on the heel, which is more than I can say about some adults I know that are paid to carry firearms for a living.

 

[kevhunt80]

Should those that hunt be required to prove training?  Just in weapons, or should they be tested on knowledge of the game they propose to pursue, if you deem that necessary to require.

Not too long ago I read where a high up LEO shot and killed his friend whilst turkey hunting, bet you he had a lot of "formal" training with firearms.

 

I do not remember any statutory requirement to be proficient in the use of arms to be guaranteed the right to posses them in any Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Rights I have read yet.

Can a parent teach a child the proper use and safe handling of a firearm, or does it require the State to be effective?  I am around numerous shooters between the age of 10 and 12 that I would trust with a weapon around me far more than some adults I know, and they have had no "formal" training, but they have enought sense to pour pee out of a boot with directions on the heel, which is more than I can say about some adults I know that are paid to carry firearms for a living.

 

Well your opinion is just that, but we are taking about USING a firearm for self defense or the defense of others.  People can own as many as they want. I don't think training should be required to own or even hunt with guns, but we are not talking about hunting.  Carrying with the intent to use it in an aggressive, unpredictable scenario involves making multiple life altering decisions in seconds.  If you want untrained people protecting your loved ones when you're not around then you can have them.  As stated before, don't let a few examples dictate reality.  If some police chief isn't smart enough not to shoot his buddy that's not an argument that being trained is useless.  There is big difference between using guns for hunting and using them for defense.  Good luck on your success if you have never trained for defensive gun fighting and carry a gun for defense.  Don't mistake my values.  I will toe the line to fight if anyone tries to infringe on my 2A rights. But, just because you can doesn't mean you should.  

[Worriedman]

Well your opinion is just that

Don't think I offered an opinion, I did ask a few questions of you, and stated some facts.

 

Once again, as you evidently did not get it, I will pose one of the questions, the most salient.  Where is it written in the Constitution that ANY amount of training is necessary to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. 

If there is no text that you can provide, then your statement about training being necessary is an opinion, is it not?

Edited April 18, 2014 by Worriedman

[dcloudy777]

Who exactly should determine how much training is required? What sort of training? Who should decide what sort of training?

Supposed 2nd Amendment supporters should stop trying to make "what they wish" into law. That's what liberals do.

[kevhunt80]

Don't think I offered an opinion, I did ask a few questions of you, and stated some facts.

 

Once again, as you evidently did not get it, I will pose one of the questions, the most salient.  Where is it written in the Constitution that ANY amount of training is necessary to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. 

If there is no text that you can provide, then your statement about training being necessary is an opinion, is it not?

No where does it saw that training is required to enjoy your 2A rights.  I would just hope that if you chose to carry (open or concealed) that you would have the sense to be prepared.  Is that anti second amendment?.  My question to you is why so much push back on this topic?  Do you think it's adequate to just have a gun?  Is that what makes you safe?  I am not arguing anything anti rights.  I am venturing into a tangent about what responsible gun ownership looks like.

[TMF]

[quote name="kevhunt80" post="1140416" timestamp="1397879329"]I would just hope that if you chose to carry (open or concealed) that you would have the sense to be prepared. Is that anti second amendment?[/quote] If you believe that a law should require it, then yes, that is anti-second amendment. If you're just suggesting people should seek training, then I think everyone here would agree with you. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kevhunt80]

If you believe that a law should require it, then yes, that is anti-second amendment. If you're just suggesting people should seek training, then I think everyone here would agree with you. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't want the law to require it, but if the libs are going to push a law I would rather see that one. But, I have to disagree with you on your point about "everyone" agreeing.  I just don't think all people do.  That is what scares me about unrestricted open carry.  I think defensive training as a whole should have a bigger presence in this community. I would love to see it taught in schools..i.e: you have the right to carry a gun now he is how you use it.  They teach us to speak and debate to exercise out freedom of speech.  They even teach us the dangers of drunk driving so we can drink responsibly, but guns don't get the positive attention they need.  "Most" people would agree with me, but it's the other ones that scare me and ultimately give us a bad name.

[KKing]

No, most do not agree with you, just as our forefathers didn't. Any law, written by a liberal (as you state you'd "compromise" on) or otherwise that impedes the right to bear arms of the American people, is unconstitutional. There are no "with a permit" or "with training" words after "The right to keep and bear arms" Yes, by bearing arms, they meant to carry and use. Do I personally wish everyone trained more, including myself, for defensive purposes? Sure I do. Do I think that should be a deciding factor in wether or not they can carry a gun for protection? Absolutely not Edited April 19, 2014 by KKing

[TMF]

[quote name="kevhunt80" post="1140420" timestamp="1397880135"]I don't want the law to require it, but if the libs are going to push a law I would rather see that one. But, I have to disagree with you on your point about "everyone" agreeing. I just don't think all people do. That is what scares me about unrestricted open carry. I think defensive training as a whole should have a bigger presence in this community. I would love to see it taught in schools..i.e: you have the right to carry a gun now he is how you use it. They teach us to speak and debate to exercise out freedom of speech. They even teach us the dangers of drunk driving so we can drink responsibly, but guns don't get the positive attention they need. "Most" people would agree with me, but it's the other ones that scare me and ultimately give us a bad name.[/quote] I have yet to meet a person who carries a firearm say that folks don't need training. Of course people do. But that is their choice. Much like parents needing to educate themselves on how to be good parents and raise future adults. Every parent needs to, but most don't. That's their decision. That is liberty. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Worriedman]

 My question to you is why so much push back on this topic?  Do you think it's adequate to just have a gun? 

Yes, actually I do, and Jefferson agreed: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms".  Hamilton went so far as to say: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."  Patric Henry would be in my corner were he still kicking as well: "The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."

You, on the other hand remind me of  the statement by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis when he said: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."  I give the benefit of the doubt about the "well meaning" part...

 

[teecro]

No where does it saw that training is required to enjoy your 2A rights.  I would just hope that if you chose to carry (open or concealed) that you would have the sense to be prepared.  Is that anti second amendment?.  My question to you is why so much push back on this topic?  Do you think it's adequate to just have a gun?  Is that what makes you safe?  I am not arguing anything anti rights.  I am venturing into a tangent about what responsible gun ownership looks like.

 

Because if we do not push back the rules and/or laws get made up by the folks who "just" have the public's safety in mind and the problem with that is that it is a broad stamp across the board and before you know it you are living even further under gun control...

[Worriedman]

They teach us to speak and debate to exercise out freedom of speech.  They even teach us the dangers of drunk driving so we can drink responsibly...

Assuming that you mean by "They" that you mean schools (if I can follow your syntax), I have a question for you.  Are you being serious?

 

The average government school is in the business of pushing agendas, training the sheep to get in line and take direction without question.  Preparing a generation to go through the TSA line at the airport without so much as a thought of the breech of Liberty occurring is more the target (to gild the lily here).  To posit that the use of firearms, safe or otherwise might be remotely included in a curriculum today is past the pale.

 

[Guest PapaB]

I've read many comments in several threads about how people need training to carry firearms. I don't disagree that it's beneficial for everyone to have training if they're going to handle firearms but I vehemently disagree with those that think it should be required, for the following reason. Requiring someone be trained would suggest that a rule, regulation, ordinance or law be written because, shy of that, there is no 'requirement'. If I missed it I apologize but I haven't seen the discussion we should, imho, be having.

 

Should we manage to get Constitutional carry someday, I would hope we would all step up to the plate and help the newbs learn what's needed. We don't need regulations to talk about gun safety or invite people to a shooting range and help them develope skills. LGS's could start inexpensive classes on just safety or just the laws or a combo. They could even offer free gun safety training to each first time gun buyer. We don't need the politicians telling us how to do what's right.

[kevhunt80]

Assuming that you mean by "They" that you mean schools (if I can follow your syntax), I have a question for you.  Are you being serious?

 

The average government school is in the business of pushing agendas, training the sheep to get in line and take direction without question.  Preparing a generation to go through the TSA line at the airport without so much as a thought of the breech of Liberty occurring is more the target (to gild the lily here).  To posit that the use of firearms, safe or otherwise might be remotely included in a curriculum today is past the pal

This topic has digressed.  My intention was to not stir this pot, but ,rather, to get thoughts and learn.  You sir are someone I should have a beer with and discuss further.   But, as far as this thread goes, I'm exhausted

[TM01]

Yes; and that is the key phrase.

 

I have mixed emotions about this, personally. We all know felons have access to guns if they really want to. The current permit process helps with weeding them out. If one becomes allowed to carry without any check involved, I can see where this would open the door for felons to have a way to carry. Would this open the door for police to randomly be able to stop EVERYONE they see at any time and request ID to see if they are legal or not?

 

I'm personally not a huge fan of open carry, however I do it from time to time. At least as it stands NOW, we "know" that anyone carrying, concealed or open, has gone through a check of some kind, and they are indeed a basic "law abiding citizen."

So you are saying that criminals wont carry guns because they do not have a permit and that this system we have currently works to prevent them frim having guns?,,did I read this wrong?  Lol..they banned guns altigether in Chicago and know the only people being killed are the defenseless ones by criminals that obtained the guns illegally. 

 

This is a simple question and many of you may have heard it purposed a few different ways so hear it goes... If everyone was carrying a weapon for defense, do you think that criminals would be as brazen and open in there attacks while using guns?

[Guest PapaB]

This is a simple question and many of you may have heard it purposed a few different ways so hear it goes... If everyone was carrying a weapon for defense, do you think that criminals would be as brazen and open in there attacks while using guns?

 

I think, if all adults were trained in the proper use and safe handling of a gun, practiced using their gun(s) and were allowed to carry it, we would hear the wailing of thousands of families crying out "but they were good kids, you didn't have to shoot them just cause they (insert your own thug scenario here)". Eventually, some thugs would die, some would change their ways, and the more hardcore would likely focus their activities in a smaller, more urban area during the night. Security companies would see a huge boost in business as would companies that train guard dogs. Violent crime would shrink dramatically and I'd expect a reduction in all crime throughout the country (not including those commited by the government).