"We needed licensed OC because.."

imported post

Shorts wrote:

...SNIP
Street doc, I'm doing my best as I a military wife and holster maker who currently living in Japan, to support the opencarry.org movement to push for Texas open carry. ...SNIP...

Click to expand...

So do I pass the test to ask questions?

Click to expand...

For my part all you need to say was that you were serving this country overseas. Thank you and your husband for your service, and feel free to ask what you will in any way you want to ask it.

With my sincere apologies

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

marshaul wrote:

"We need licensed OC because....

...I am totally ignorant about Alaska and Vermont."



Edit: Hawk does make a good point. What he doesn't realize is that Shorts is just waiting to elicit concise, indisputable rebuttals from myself that enable him to shut his opponents elsewhere on the internet up once and for all.

Click to expand...

Well just so nobody gets to thinking one opinion is any better than another.:lol:

Shorts - I did not intent to curb your enthusiasm, I was just wondering if you had tried to look this stuff up.

Most of us here have to deal with these question you are asking regularly. In many cases they have really been discussed to death. So I know I am not the only one that feels a little jerked around by the provocative titling you are using for these threads. Then I get here and, "Oh it is Shorts again", and I can calm down.

If this is all helping you somehow then fine carry on. But if this is about consolidating the arguments, there are threads all over the forum already.

Regards

PS - Of Course if you are soliciting the wisdom of Marshaul, well that would also be "a horse of a differant color."

Click to expand...

Hawkflyer, I'm going to sell myself out and say its much easier to ask the question than it is to search :uhoh: The topics are covered. I've searched often for other questions. What I find challenging is that many threads go in different directions and there are a lot of posts to sift through to find what I need. The other part is that the stacks of posts often compliment each other. So that particular idea is built up through a series of posts, which makes for a lot of reading.

Again, I appreciate folks willingness here to entertain my questions. I do p ost the title provocative. I use the wording that an antigun or antiOCers might use. I find that the familiarity to be understandable on a cognitive level. I certainly don't mean to raise thte ol' blood pressure too much! :lol:

imported post

For my part all you need to say was that you were serving this country overseas. Thank you and your husband for your service, and feel free to ask what you will in any way you want to ask it. With my sincere apologies

Click to expand...

Oh shoot, my intention was to keep 'Shorts' gender neutral. The cat's out of the bag now


No apology needed, but thank you for the thank you.



Alright, so the topic at hand.

I think the poster would feel much better if he got shot by a trained, licensed person, then by a yahoo. Right?

Click to expand...

LOL I'll be sure to ask. Come to think of it, I have a particular post in mind that I'll post to in a bit. I'm sure this guy would actually get a kick out of the reply :lol:



This kind of argument is one based on projection? Interesting.




I know we've all heard stories, read stories and/or experienced "that guy" at the range who is a bit scary to share a divider with. I would venture to say that if "that guy" is bad at handling, it's a very good thing he will not be handling his gun while out in public as it should be/will securely holstered or 1) he is committing a punishable offense and 2) something's gone wrong and the situation is a condition red where he's drawing.


Is this reasonable thinking?

imported post

Can you please rephrase and reask?

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Can you please rephrase and reask?

Click to expand...

Ok, my take is that a gun being carried, either OC or CC, still must be carried appropriately in public. Which means, no hands on the gun. No playing with it. And certainly no drawing unless that is where the situation has gone for self defense.

In general, the behavior required from a person carrying a firearm should be the same whether the gun is concealed or open.

Thoughts?

imported post

Shorts wrote:

For my part all you need to say was that you were serving this country overseas. Thank you and your husband for your service, and feel free to ask what you will in any way you want to ask it. With my sincere apologies

Click to expand...

Oh shoot, my intention was to keep 'Shorts' gender neutral. The cat's out of the bag now


No apology needed, but thank you for the thank you.

Click to expand...

Although the name "Shorts" was neutral the large Tweety Bird in the sig was a giveaway....:lol:

But I still don't think any amount of training would be questions if the tradition of learning from your parents was still a tradition. I know when I was 5 my father took me and my brothers out for our first lesson...I did the same for my daughter.

It is likely they don't understand this either. Like smoking, if your parents didn't smoke, there is a good chance you won't either. If you weren't raised around guns, you might never experience them without a gunny pulling you in and getting you hooked.

As for the comment about touching...I try not to touch my gun when OC, but sometimes it is hard not to move it to get in my pocket or to simply rest my arm now and then.

And although I have had people ask, I do not take it out unless I intend on shooting someone.

imported post

Shorts wrote:

...SNIP
I know we've all heard stories, read stories and/or experienced "that guy" at the range who is a bit scary to share a divider with. I would venture to say that if "that guy" is bad at handling, it's a very good thing he will not be handling his gun while out in public as it should be/will securely holstered or 1) he is committing a punishable offense and 2) something's gone wrong and the situation is a condition red where he's drawing.


Is this reasonable thinking?

Click to expand...

In my view there is no excuse for poor handling skills. This is something that can and shouldbe trained out of a person. I was brought up to believe that the heaviest weight you will ever carry in you life is 2 lbs of iron in a leather holster, and you should take that responsibility very seriously. That includes KNOWING how to handle it properly and safely.

Regards

imported post

Shorts wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Can you please rephrase and reask?

Click to expand...

Ok, my take is that a gun being carried, either OC or CC, still must be carried appropriately in public. Which means, no hands on the gun. No playing with it. And certainly no drawing unless that is where the situation has gone for self defense.

In general, the behavior required from a person carrying a firearm should be the same whether the gun is concealed or open.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. While some brandishing statutes go too far, brandishing as a malum in se offense is a form of assault and penalties will apply when one person assaults another with a threat of potentially lethal force.

Generally, societal "controls" (norms) and tort law are sufficient to ensure that most people don't "play" with their firearms.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Shorts wrote:

...SNIP
I know we've all heard stories, read stories and/or experienced "that guy" at the range who is a bit scary to share a divider with. I would venture to say that if "that guy" is bad at handling, it's a very good thing he will not be handling his gun while out in public as it should be/will securely holstered or 1) he is committing a punishable offense and 2) something's gone wrong and the situation is a condition red where he's drawing.


Is this reasonable thinking?

Click to expand...

In my view there is no excuse for poor handling skills. This is something that can and shouldbe trained out of a person. I was brought up to believe that the heaviest weight you will ever carry in you life is 2 lbs of iron in a leather holster, and you should take that responsibility very seriously. That includes KNOWING how to handle it properly and safely.

Regards

Click to expand...

Agree, with that. There is no excuse for poor handling. And it should be corrected by the firearm owner. I think it is here that the argument for "required training" would be applied. My opinion is it's a bit of 'hand holding'. Generally firearms enthusiast are motivated by the activity itself to learn more, to be more involved at "being better with guns" for defense, techniques and situations. And also to have well maintained and well-performing, functioning gear.



As Mr Chicken pointed out, gun handling is the norm for many firearm enthusiast as they are raised. I'd say as regular as learning to ride a bike or drive a stick shift. It seems weird to me that folks wouldn't know proper handling.

Absolutely. While some brandishing statutes go too far, brandishing as a malum in se offense is a form of assault and penalties will apply when one person assaults another with a threat of potentially lethal force. Generally, societal "controls" (norms) and tort law are sufficient to ensure that most people don't "play" with their firearms.

Click to expand...

And doesn't/shouldn't those regs satisfy the 'more rules and regulations' crowd????

imported post

Shorts wrote:

...SNIP

Absolutely. While some brandishing statutes go too far, brandishing as a malum in se offense is a form of assault and penalties will apply when one person assaults another with a threat of potentially lethal force. Generally, societal "controls" (norms) and tort law are sufficient to ensure that most people don't "play" with their firearms.

Click to expand...

And doesn't/shouldn't those regs satisfy the 'more rules and regulations' crowd????

Click to expand...

you bet!

Of course it doesn't. The flaw in their logic is that a law on paper can stop a person form committing an act. The law only defines a thing as not to be done and what punishment will be paid for breaking that law. No law can stop a person who wishes to ignore that law.

Another flaw it the concept that a single act that offends the sensibilitiesrequires a new law. This just leads to piles of laws that no one can follow because they do not know all the details required.

You correctly assume that people SHOULD be interested enough to learn how to handle a firearm correctly. AS was pointed out those of us raised around firearms do this be second nature. Those who were not may require remediation. S training is a good idea. BUT! There is no constitutionally supported way to require that training as necessary to the ownership or carry of a firearm.

That does not mean laws will not be put in place, but there is actually no Constitutional support for them. In fact "Shall not be infringed" specifically proscribes such requirements for firearms ownership or carry.

At this point your opponent will usually point at the mention of a "Well regulated Militia" and say that means training is required. Sent them off to read the "Militia Statutes" that are at 10 U.S.C. S 311 (1993). While they are reading you can prepare to explain to them that a militia is not what they think it is under the law, and there is no requirement for training to own a firearm.


Regards

imported post

Awesome - thank you for walking me through the progression of the position. It is a lot to put together and it wouldn't be as clear without the help.

Thanks again

imported post

Shorts wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Can you please rephrase and reask?

Click to expand...

Ok, my take is that a gun being carried, either OC or CC, still must be carried appropriately in public. Which means, no hands on the gun. No playing with it. And certainly no drawing unless that is where the situation has gone for self defense.

In general, the behavior required from a person carrying a firearm should be the same whether the gun is concealed or open.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

How will a permit prevent a person from doing the things you state? It won't....it will be another unnecessary piece of paper you "need" to exercise a right.

For example: in VA you don't need a permit to OC....where has there been a problem by the OCer?

imported post

"Shorts" I commend you for what you are doing, gaining knowledge, understanding and for making the determination to stand up for what is important to you. It isvital that we demand all our rights not just the ones that are importantto you (generic to everybody) but all of them. I served 20 years on active dutyin the Marines and swore an oath to defend the Constitution. Although I am now retired from the Marines, that oath is stillpart of my life, in fact it now means more to me than before because of the knowledge and understanding I have gained.The book that I mention eariler is helping me to see the Second Amendment through the development and forming of our country and how important it is still today.

imported post

Thank you streetdoc, for the recommendation and certainly for your service. We're always looking for new, GOOD reads. I'll have a look.

imported post

modificationvt,

whenever I see posts like this I always think "why aren't there more incidents of ND in VT"

Click to expand...

Indeed, and the same reasoning applies to places like WA, where have no training requirement at all for a Concealed Pistol License. Not that I'm an advocate for carrying a handgun you don't know how to use, but rather that the state doesn't require any, so people get the training they think they need.

And GUESS WHAT--we don't really have a detectable problem with ND's or unjustifiable shootings by permit-holders, compared to the states that do have a requirement.

imported post

This concept of having a licence for everything is a bitunreasonable. in light of the facts The general argument in favor of licencing is safety related.

A lot of people do not know that a person can build an airplane in their garage, and so long as it does not weight more than 254 pounds, seat more than one person, carry more than 5 gals of fuel, and is not capable of more than 70 mph in level flight, they can fly it without a licence, medical examinationor any training of any kind.

Now we are talking airplanes here. The kind that fly over your house and mine. My god think of the children ...

Well as it turns out the safety record for Ultralight aircraft is actually better than it is for General aviation (requires both a medical exam and a licence), and is almost as good as the safety record for commercial aviation. It should be noted that while these little guys do not fly very far in one hop, they do fly a lot, and there are a lot of them out there.

It would be a very interesting research project to examine these different areas of unlicensed activity like OC, UL flying and othersto see why it is that the safety record in many of them is actually better than the same basic activity that requires a licence.

Regards

imported post

Here we go with this "training" nonsense. What training is needed? I took the CCW class and while I found it to be quite useful the truth is that I already had a good grasp on most of the stuff they taught previously anyway. Training is certainly a benefit to people who carry guns as one can get more accurate, practice better defensive and retention moves, establish better mental conditioning, and other things. However, the emphasis on "training" to simply carry a firearm (whether openly or concealed) doesn't make a lot of sense. Shootinga gun is easy even for a novice. Learning how to drive a car or even ride a bike is far more difficult and far more dangerous. We don't require six-year-olds to obtain a license to ride a bike although we require licenses for driving cars yet this still doesn't do anything to prevent the tens of thousands of auto-related fatalities that occur each year. I also wouldn't be surprised if the number of children killed riding bikes (unlicensed) each year is actually less than the number of children killed in auto accidents even with a licensed adult driver and wearing proper safety restraints.

Most states already have existing common-sense firearms laws in place such as relating to negligent discharges, intentional discharges, reckless handling, threatening behavior, and liability if a firearm is left unattended and a child uses it. With safety laws already in place, there is no need to require "training" of any kind except to simply further erode our 2nd Amendment rights.

imported post

Well, the part that doesn't make sense about "required training" to go with a permit is that states have reciprocity with other states that do not require a training class to obtain a permit. Rather just have a app, a fee and a back ground check.

So, can a permit guarantee training? No.

imported post

Shorts wrote:

Well, the part that doesn't make sense about "required training" to go with a permit is that states have reciprocity with other states that do not require a training class to obtain a permit. Rather just have a app, a fee and a back ground check.

So, can a permit guarantee training? No.

Click to expand...

It is rather interesting that only recently have we seen this call for training as a prerequisite for ownership and carry. I think this is the result of the efforts of the CC crowd. Part of the argument made in favor of shall issue permits was that everyone would get training.

So now we have a situation where you can own and carry a firearm, but you need training to put on an overcoat.:banghead:

imported post

This is the effect of the pervasive influence of the NRA and its members.

The sale of exceptions to 2A infringements is the raison d'etre of the NRA - no more and no less.