Finding myself being more and more in favor of OC in SC

[John Canuck]

The second amendment is a protection against governement interfereing with the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. The words training, dgu, reasonable, fire, crowded theater, or privelidge do not appear In the 2A.

 

[fiundagner]

The second amendment is a protection against government interfering with the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. The words training, dgu, reasonable, fire, crowded theater, or privilege do not appear In the 2A.

I don?t believe the words insanity or felony appear in the second amendment either. Does this mean you support giving a gun to Charles Mason?

I know I am not competent to judge the sanity of another man, and that by myself I should not judge the guilt or innocence. That is why "jury of their peers" is important. Again, some things are too large for an individual to control, and must be relegated to a central government (go try to negotiate a peace treaty with Cuba or North Korea by yourself. See how seriously they take you) the key is to make sure the government remains as small as possible. A government should be individually reactive (deal with individual incidents after they happen, and minimally proactive (don?t ban something because one person did something stupid).

Now realize that if we are going with my plan, this training course would be it for gun control. No ATF, no brady check, no MG registry, tax stamp, or class 3 license, no FFL. None of the hoops we already jump through to own a gun. Unless i am to take your comment as you have chosen to exercise your second amendment rights by going around all of those restrictions, or have protested them by not purchasing a weapon. I think that it is perfectly reasonable to trust the individual ahead of time and enforce compliance after something has happened if that individual has proven unworthy of the trust of society.

Most of the laws that exist, particularly the "moral" codes (whole different article), do not have a solid constitutional basis. The constitution should be the foundation of the house of government, but every house needs walls (the law) and a roof (the three branch of goverment) to be complete. The trick is to make sure that the house does not become too large to be cleaned, and that the roof and walls are firmly placed.

 

[John Canuck]

If I understand your plan as you've explained it, you support no gun control whatsoever, other than for someone who is unfortunate enough to be forced into a situation where they have to defend themselves. In their case, they would be required to supply the government with proof of a hunter education course. Thanks for the chuckle.

 

[fiundagner]

I didn?t say I thought it would ever happen, but yeah, that about my point. Personal responsibility and proof of training after something has happened. Deal with individual incidents and those involved as individuals, and avoid blanketing entire groups. I think the phrase I?m looking for is "trust, but verify"

 

[FunkyMonkey]

My last thoughts:

A clean shot is a clean shot, regardless of whether a Seal Team 6 member or my grandmother pulled the trigger. The converse is also true - negligent use of a firearm is the same regardless of previous training. There is no evidence I am aware of that any government requirement for training or proficiency makes either more likely. I just got my Utah CC license training today - there is no requirement for live fire. This is as it should be. I'm responsible and proficient, I don't need to prove this to anyone. I challenge anyone to produce evidence that Utah CC license holders are any more prone to firearm problems than the states that require proof of proficiency.

We "enthusiasts" are not the problem. The problem is a) the criminal element who, by definition, this will not apply to and b) society's most vulnerable members (like my grandmother). To adapt an old saying, I'd rather have 1,000 responsible citizens without "proof" of training armed and open carrying if they choose rather than one person disuaded or prevented from exercising their 2A right to protect themselves and their loved ones because of goverment interference.

There is no requirement for training in other OC states and it works quite well.

Thanks for the thought-provoking debate. Hopefully this will be a reality soon in SC.

 

[John Canuck]

snip

firearms carry privileges

This is where you lose it. Some are trying to either keep the bearing of arms as a right, or to restore it where it has been made a privilege. No training to exercise a right will be accepted. Obviously you consider keeping and bearing arms to be something other than a right. Sad.

 

[armaborealis]

People like fiundagner are why I doubt SC will have OC anytime soon. Even within the shooting community there is not much enthusiasm for OC in this state. SC was one of the last states to sign on with CC in the 90s, though, I suppose. Many residents of SC seem to lack a pro-freedom mindset and see themselves more as subjects with privileges than as citizens with natural rights. This is very strange to me given the powerful Revolutionary War symbolism on the Palmetto flags I see all over the place (flags, bumper stickers, etc).

Fiundagner, I use a simple test to evaluate a lot of gun control type laws. "Would this law prevent a battered spouse whose violent ex is getting released from jail early from protecting themselves effectively?" The answer to that question for your scheme is YES. Mandatory training requirements target lower income people for whom taking a day off work and paying $50 is a fairly serious burden to entry. It also is something that requires advance scheduling, so in my test case the victim would have days or weeks where they lack protection.

Furthermore, I'd like to flip your question around. You seem to ask, "Why do people NEED to carry guns in public without mandatory safety training?" I would ask you the question, "Why do you NEED to infringe on people's natural rights?" Where is the evidence that mandatory safety classes actually reduce the rate of negligent discharges in public places for handguns? Is your proposed solution narrowly tailored to address a compelling public interest in the least intrusive manner possible? Don't get me wrong, I'm a big advocate of training and safety education. I just don't see any hard data that suggests that the states with longer CWP training class requirements have fewer problems than states with low or no training requirement. Then again I am a resident of Alaska and we have Constitutional Carry, OC or CC with no permission slip required. We don't seem to have any issues other than with habitual criminals who tend to be prohibited persons who tend not to follow laws anyways (i.e. they can't legally as much as TOUCH a gun yet they do anyways).

To the OP -- glad to hear you've changed your opinion! Change in SC to allow OC will be one person at a time and will likely require a generation. But it is eventually possible. I'd settle for OC with a valid CWP to start with. Once folks start OCing and there is realization that there is not a problem and it is not a big deal, then move towards permitless OC. One step at a time.

 

[fiundagner]

It?s so nice to see education in action. MSNBC has really taught everyone about editing these days, haven?t they. I believe what I said was:

... firearms carry privileges (not the right word but i can't think of a better one off of the top of my head)

i stated that privilege was not the right word, but my internal dictionary has been failing me lately. I have seen a bunch of cherry picking of quotes, so let?s go back to the start. I believe that I started with

I'm in favor of open carry simply because I don?t want to have to worry if my shirt has ridden up a smidge to high, or if my jacket gapped a little to far when I bent over to check the tires on my car

I am not against open carry. I would like to have the option of not worrying about how snug my shirt is, or if my love handles will get in the way if I have to draw (not one word about situps please). But as long as we are cherry picking and taking out of context - if the choice is no open carry, or open carry with training requirements you choice seems to be in favor of no open carry.

I?d like to point out, once again, that I am not asking for an OC permitting process. Note the lack of on demand permits, and permits in general. An officer cannot walk up to you out of the blue and request to see your permit, the way they can if you are carrying concealed (had that happen before). At no point did I say you can?t OC without a permit, only that you would pay a penalty, after an incident occurred, if you did not have your safety training certificate. I am not requesting a shooting skills evaluation such as that required for CWP holders, merely a safety and safe handling training course. That alone might help by explain the differences between automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons to previously uneducated people.

I am asking for a trust based system where you don?t have to pay the government for a permit. You pay for a firearms safety course similar to a NRA firearms safety course or hunters education course. I think hunters education costs about 15$ these days, if you take it online. That?s less than I pay for a box of ammo at Wal-Mart (or is that an unreasonable cost as well. Shall we give ammunition away for free to lower income gun owners?). It?s free if you go to a DNR course on site somewhere. Then if, and only if, an incident occurs a person should provide, within 3-5 business days, proof that they have had some form of safe handling and training class. This place the burden solely in the realm of personal responsibility in the event of an incident. If nothing else this will prevent them from being able to claim ignorance when they bring their gun into no carry zones such as bars, restaurants that serve alcohol, schools, and properly posted locations for example. Or do you advocate that OC people will have less legal responsibility than CWP holders?

Final thoughts:

I support open carry.

I do not object strongly to a safety training requirement to open carry if that is needed to get open carry, as long as it is not the equivalent of a permit system. A trust based system vs asking for permission in simple terms.

I would like to get rid of the ATF, Class 3 licenses, FFl requirements, and all the assorted other mess that is currently legislated into the firearms process and replace it with a simple safety training requirement

Drink blue slushies!

 

[John Canuck]

It's still a fail. No dictionary is required. The correct word is "right". The rest of what you typed, is just justification to not recognize keeping and bearing arms as an inalienable right. It's not the government's job to make sure people are competent to exist.

Your selection of when to punish someone for not taking required training is not particularly relevant. If its required, it's required to exercise a right and isn't acceptable to those who want to live unfettered by government overreach. Of course, I'd you don't recognize it as a right, then it's easy to justify all sorts of things. Can you bring yourself to recognize the individual right to keep and bear arms?

You ask if I'm advocating that people OC'ing have less responsibility than those CC'ing. It's a nice dodge. No. I advocate that all people are responsible for their actions without a training course approved by the government. Remember, you are talking about a right whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Straw men, non sequiturs, dodges, and avoiding the question can't get you away from it.

Having said all that, maybe if an NRA course where a requirement to OC, the NRA might actually get engaged in SC. You might be on to something as the NRA seems to confuse rights and privileges all the time.