Policy

I was paid a great compliment last Monday, after the Defensive Handgun course, by one of my Students.  And it was one that stuck with me.
He said my course should be the State’s Concealed Handgun training.
Wow.  That’s awesome.
Then I thought, all of my philosophies should be State Policy.  Within the boundaries of the Constitution of course.

17 thoughts on “Policy”

  1. Mandatory training to exercise a Right is not within the boundaries of the Constitution… 🙂

      1. Not really, no. “Shall not be infringed” doesn’t leave room for “shall only be infringed to the point of requiring training courses” any more than it allows “shall only be infringed by banning evil assault weapons” or “shall only be infringed by requiring all magazines to be less than seven rounds.” The whole licensing thing is completely unconstitutional, and training requirements just make it worse. No State has a “right” to violate the Constitutional Rights of the People.

        “Shall not be infringed” is pretty darn specific. Licensing, training, background checks, limits on who may own guns, and what calibers, and how many, and when they were manufactured, and any such foolishness… all of it is unconstitutional.

        1. Courts have deamed it legal for States to do it.
          Im not saying I like it… but its the Law, and like it or not, must obey it. Im just glad to keep it at State level and not fed.
          And dont assume to lecture me on this… ive taken this before the State to get this changed and pushed for Constitutional Carry… even ran for public office on that platform, bringing the debate to the forefront in Utah by pushing my State Rep that I ran against.
          What have you done? What Pro Gun groups are you supporting financially? NRA, GOA, JPFO, USCCA? All of them? Or None of them?

          1. NRA isn’t pro-gun. Constitutional Carry almost passed, here, except that the NRA rep worked to kill it by adding all sorts of anti-gun nonsense, after which there was no way the bill could ever pass.

            Of course, Constitutional Carry actually has an uphill battle, here, because the laws are just so darn minimal that it’s hard to get anyone annoyed about them. It’s easier to get a CCW than to sign up for a new cell phone plan. Costs less, too, at $2.50 per year. No fingerprints, no photographs, no SSN, no training requirement, and no minimum age. Name, address, and $10, and you get a four-year license (five, if you go in the day after your birthday).

            New Hampshire has the least-restrictive gun laws in the entire Western world, bar none. Yet we share a border with Massachusetts and are so close to NY that we could practically throw rocks at them across Vermont. How do we manage that? Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. We declared independence from Britain on the subject of gun control, and won our freedom from the Crown a year before the other Colonies even bothered to declare their independence. And we’ve been fighting that fight for the centuries that followed.

            In NH, even if you get nailed for carrying illegally, get convicted, and pay your fine, the cops have to give you back your gun, and aren’t even allowed to run a background check on you before they do so.

            You don’t hear about folks having hilarious counter-buybacks where they offer more money than the cops, because cops here aren’t allowed to do that. You don’t hear about folks protesting that some newspaper published the names and addresses of CCW holders, because not only is such information private, even the /State/ isn’t allowed to have a central database of licenses – each individual police department maintains their own. No one’s getting hassled by cops when he has to tell them that he’s carrying, because no one’s required to proactively inform cops that he’s armed. No one’s having a protest about guns not being allowed in XYZ place, because only courtrooms are off-limits. You won’t hear much from NH, because there isn’t much to hear. The battle is nearly won.

            I attend hearings. I speak. I’ve even authored legislation. From the local level (when our town needed a new police chief, the one who said that he thinks all gun laws should be repealed won by a landslide), all the way up. Anti-gun nuts are always looking for a toe-hold, and we keep denying them one.

            There’s no other place like it, and we didn’t get here and keep things this way by compromising. Yeah, the corrupt courts may have said that the plain words of the Second Amendment don’t mean what they clearly mean… but that doesn’t make it /right/ – it just means that they can enforce their totalitarian opinion. Maybe it’s the way things are, but it’s /not/ Constitutional, and it’s /not/ right.

  2. Good thing the Constitution protects us from having to carry papers with us then…

    #pullsoffoldscab_boringday_timeformorefundebate
    #most_think_it’s_ok_for_cop_to_ask_for_ID_when_confronting_OC

    1. Hardly. Training is a great idea. As an instructor, I approve highly when folks get training. So much so that I work pro bono.

      /Mandatory training/ on the other hand, is horrific. It’s just an excuse to make carrying a gun into a difficult and expensive practice, so as to deter folks from doing so.

      What’s it cost to get a license in NC, right now? You have to pay for training, both in money and time. If you move there, you need to wait a month before you can even submit an application. You have to pay for fingerprints, like a common criminal (actually, common criminals don’t even have to pay to be fingerprinted, so they get one better), again costing both money and time. You have to fill out an offensive application demanding private medical information, and pay $80 (which you don’t get back, even if they deny you). Then you have three months to wait. If you are denied a license, it’s up to you to appeal it in court, paying the necessary fees and losing more time, while the cop who denied your application gets /paid/ to show up.

      And then there’s a whole /list/ of places you aren’t allowed to carry. Including all government buildings, so you have to abase yourself before them as an unarmed peasant before you can go in and beg your masters to respect your rights, while they laugh at you.

      NC isn’t even all that bad, compared to some states. That’s the scary part. The point of these laws is to make it as difficult, insulting, and offensive as possible for you to exercise your rights, with the hope that you won’t. And it works… very few folks carry in places with laws like that.

      I wish everyone would get training, and buy nice firearms, and fancy holsters, and such. But not everyone can afford that, both in time and money. It’s not about training. It’s about /anything/ which interferes with the exercise of a human right.

    2. I think Flint brings up valid points. No-one is against your course being type cast as the echelon of hand gun training courses in NC or anywhere else. It’s the notion that many of us mistakenly believe that there should be all these requirements and regs and legs in regards to an inalienable right.

      Too many accidents on the road in Charlotte, so your state wants to add a defensive driving course before issuing a drivers license to teens? Fine, go ahead if you must, as it’s not a right protected by the Constitution.
      But don’t be adding more additional requirements to arm yourself. Don’t be adding more qualifiers to freedom of speech or press, etc etc.

      Training is awesome but should be voluntary. Maybe attack the lack of training problem a different way? People generally love certifications, recognitions, medals etc and use this to motivate and increase skills. Why not a grading system or certification at the national level? Basic requirements, skills, knowledge required for each progressive level. Goal is to become black belt 5th Dan certified, or something similar across multiple disciplines.
      Grand Master – Defensive Carbine has a certain ring to it…

      1. Heck, there’s a certain instructor out there who will show up to testify as an expert witness on your behalf, if you take his course and then end up in a defensive shooting.

        Even below that threshold, being able to show a training certificate should be helpful in court, if you ever end up in that situation. States could go one step further and make it illegal for a prosecutor to bring up training in a negative light (as some will do, trying to imply that you were a “gun nut” who was “looking for an excuse” and got training for that purpose).

        There are plenty of ways to recognize the value of training, without making it mandatory. Making it mandatory is unconstitutional, no matter what a corrupt court might say.

          1. Indeed. I was being circumspect, since he’s yet another reason why NH is awesome.

    3. Hardly. Don’t bend this into something it’s not. “Basically every comment” is against mandatory training that interferes with our constitutional right to bear arms. That by no means implies they’re against all training. Your comment starting “Courts have deamed [sic] it legal for States…” pretty much agrees with these commentators you seem so upset by.

      1. Who said I was upset? Making an observation hardly signifies an emotional response.

        You know… all you ever do is argue with me. Go read another blog.

  3. I’m in favor of training . I own a lot of tools and thanks to training and common sense, I still have all my fingers. A gun is just one more tool and while you can teach yourself, you can sure shorten the learning curve with a good trainer.

  4. Ogre, that was a fine compliment your student made to you. Congrats!

    Infringed – what does that really mean? I’m no lawyer, so does that word really mean The State cannot impose any requirements at all to the keeping and bearing of Arms? If taken to very pro-arms thinking, in terms of the 2nd Amendment, The State would need to facilitate the availability of military small arms to all able bodied men and women, since not being able to procure them would be an infringement of your right to keep and bear arms.
    In the real world, and because there are lawyers and pro and anti-gun law makers and such, we have less than an ideal pro-arms interpretation. But that seems to be the way with anything under law, there are always differing “opinions” on most everything, and the resulting interpretation seems to lay someplace in between the two extreme viewpoints.

    1. The State is not obligated to “facilitate” anything. “Freedom of the press” does not mean that the State must supply you with newsprint – it just means they cannot interfere with your procurement thereof from someone else who has it for sale.

Comments are closed.