so what if NJ becomes shall issue

[Zeke 5,504]

Personally, I also have no problem with a training requirement and in fact think it is a good idea. The 2A clearly applies outside the home, but I also think the government does have a heightened interest in regulating carry outside the home which warrants a training requirement. I personally would like to see it outsourced to the NRA. They already have personal protection outside the home and CCW courses set up. Realistically, I think anyone who wants to carry needs, at a minimum, to have taken a basic pistol class and then at least 2 days/16 hours of in depth concealed carry training with both classroom time on permitted use of force, conflict de-escalation techniques, dry firing and drawing from a holster, and live range time. I also think an initial qualification test and recertification every few years, including an updated bacgkround check, should be required. As long as the training is offerred and conducted in good faith, and presumably it would be if overseen by the NRA, I'd have no problem with it.

We take a test for our drivers liscense. I agree 100%

[woodentoe 14]

Personally, I also have no problem with a training requirement and in fact think it is a good idea. The 2A clearly applies outside the home, but I also think the government does have a heightened interest in regulating carry outside the home which warrants a training requirement. I personally would like to see it outsourced to the NRA. They already have personal protection outside the home and CCW courses set up. Realistically, I think anyone who wants to carry needs, at a minimum, to have taken a basic pistol class and then at least 2 days/16 hours of in depth concealed carry training with both classroom time on permitted use of force, conflict de-escalation techniques, dry firing and drawing from a holster, and live range time. I also think an initial qualification test and recertification every few years, including an updated bacgkround check, should be required. As long as the training is offerred and conducted in good faith, and presumably it would be if overseen by the NRA, I'd have no problem with it.

 

All well and good. I does, however, sound expensive. If the right to bear arms exists outside the home, is it right to essentially make it means tested with expensive fees and courses? Why should a poorer person who has a more affordable firearm budget be "priced out" of exercising their right to carry and right to self defense?

 

Playing Devil's Advocate.

[PDM 91]

Woodentoe, let's put aside whether training should be a government requirement or not. Do you not agree that no one should carry without meaningful training? Don't you think it would be incredibly foolish to carry a gun outside your house without being very comfortable at the very least with shooting fundamentals, how to conceal and carry without printing, drawing from a holster, moving and shooting, tactical and emergency reloads, clearing malfunctions, etc. and a solid foundation in when it is permissible to use deadly force? I certainly think that anyone who does not have solid training in these basics is a danger to himself and others and will likely not be able to defend himself anyway if ever faced with a deadly threat or perceived threat. Quality training is not cheap, and it certainly isn't free. That's just the way it is. So, my answer would be that a poorer person would need to save up to obtain training before carrying. That's just the way it is -- with rights come responsibilities. The reality is that if you can afford a gun, holster and ammunition, you can afford some basic training, even if it may be a bit of hardship for very poor people.

 

The real potential problem is that the government could make it unnecessarily difficult and expensive to obtain training. That, IMHO, is what we need to be concerned about.

[springfieldxds 0]

Personally, I also have no problem with a training requirement and in fact think it is a good idea. The 2A clearly applies outside the home, but I also think the government does have a heightened interest in regulating carry outside the home which warrants a training requirement. I personally would like to see it outsourced to the NRA. They already have personal protection outside the home and CCW courses set up. Realistically, I think anyone who wants to carry needs, at a minimum, to have taken a basic pistol class and then at least 2 days/16 hours of in depth concealed carry training with both classroom time on permitted use of force, conflict de-escalation techniques, dry firing and drawing from a holster, and live range time. I also think an initial qualification test and recertification every few years, including an updated bacgkround check, should be required. As long as the training is offerred and conducted in good faith, and presumably it would be if overseen by the NRA, I'd have no problem with it.

 

Your requirements are worse than most states, its a right there shod be no training requirement whatsoever

[springfieldxds 0]

 

We take a test for our drivers liscense. I agree 100%

 

Are you serious, driving is a privilege, carrying is a right, do you know the difference

[brocglock23 4]

Are you serious, driving is a privilege, carrying is a right, do you know the difference

This was actually just discussed in another thread in I think Bucket. Maybe you can chime in.

[mipafox 438]

You've given up hope.  Pack your things and leave.

 

Don't knock it till you try it.  Ask around

[raz-0 1,259]

 

i think my speculations seem a little bit more realistic

 

Not really. For NJ to be forced to shall issue, it would require a fairly strong handed ruling by SCOTUS. Much like DC, there will be limits to what they can pull. It will be a right, and if they effectively negate it, they wind up right back in court with a really bad case.

 

If shall issue were made mandatory as part of the 2a, NJ will have to be dragged kicking and screaming, but they will still be dragged.

[PK90 3,570]

Are you serious, driving is a privilege, carrying is a right, do you know the difference

 

+10000000000000

[Soju 153]

Your requirements are worse than most states, its a right there shod be no training requirement whatsoever

 

But people aren't responsible enough, so they have to make rules and requirements. But I don't have to be responsible, because there are rules and requirements to tell me how to be. But people aren't responsible enough....

[MrSurfboard 1]

Unless it comes from the US Supreme Court, I am fairly confident NJ will never be a shall issue state.

[Zeke 5,504]

 

 

Are you serious, driving is a privilege, carrying is a right, do you know the difference

So then, a non criminal blind person should be able to ccw cause its their right?

[Socom 19]

And the point of all of your nonsensical speculation?

i was thinking the same shit! Guns just go to some people's heads.

[reloaderguy 30]

Are you serious, driving is a privilege, carrying is a right, do you know the difference

 

Why is driving a privilege? Because the government says so! Think again!

[liquidskin 3]

 

Why is driving a privilege? Because the government says so! Think again!

 

Where in the constitution is the right to drive established?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[BlueLineFish 615]

 

Where in the constitution is the right to drive established?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Maybe they couldn't conceptualize cars back then or driving would be another amendment...lol

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Where in the constitution is the right to drive established?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

Just because it's not enumerated as a right, does not mean it isn't a right.

[liquidskin 3]

 

The 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

Just because it's not enumerated as a right, does not mean it isn't a right.

 

Agreed, but you'll have a tough time arguing driving is a fundamental right.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Agreed, but you'll have a tough time arguing driving is a fundamental right.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Not really. All you need to do is ask the judge to see how he would get to work without a license... he'll understand.

[n4p226r 105]

Isn't NY's fees getting challenged right now? That should determine how NJ and Illinois will be if we win

[raz-0 1,259]

Your requirements are worse than most states, its a right there shod be no training requirement whatsoever

 

That's not how rights work under our system of law. Most all rights have some point where you exercising your rights starts to infringe on another exercising their rights. Part of the government's job is to deal with issues that arise when that occurs. The first amendment is curtailed when it's exercise could be harmful to many. You do not have the right to say what you want however you want, wherever you want without repercussions. In general, you go to court and figure out where that middle ground is that preserves the rights of all parties. Even an afternoon of training firing a few boxes of ammo is much better than nothing. Requiring 2 weeks of a high end course every year with an expenditure of thousands of rounds of ammo is out of the reach of a lot of people and very likely into the realm of diminishing returns.

 

And driving is not a privilege. I'm pretty sure that you cna successfully argue the constitution grants yo the right to freely move about the nation as you see fit. I'm even more certain that you can argue it grants you the right to freedom of personal mobility as required to engage in run of the mill living. Most places in the nation, that means you need the ability to drive at least some times. They want to argue it is a privilege, they should build effective and copious mass transit.

[mipafox 438]

<p>

That's not how rights work under our system of law.

That's because our "system of law" does not recognize Rights. It just throws the word around for seasoning.

 

Most all rights have some point where you exercising your rights starts to infringe on another exercising their rights.

 

No, they don't. If you are infringing on someone else's rights, then you are actively committing a civil or cr4iminal violation that has nothing to do with your own rights. It's not justification to have your own rights infringed.

 

 

Penalties for yelling "fire" in a movie theater is not a restriction on my 1A rights. But it is an extremely insidious Straw Man construct of the Progressives. If I throw a smoke bomb into a theater, it is mayhem and reckless endangerment. If I yell, "Fire," it is not a limitation on Free Speech - it's still reckless endangerment.

 

I have an unalienable right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. If I shit in your garden I have not misused my right to breath air, I've shat in your garden.

[Soju 153]

Freedom of movement/travel is a well established right. What do you think you are doing when you are driving a car? Unless you are actively engaged in commerce...

 

Is it okay to effect a walking license. A bike riding license? A pogo-stick license?

[quikz 34]

Alot of you folks think the 'training' and annual this or that is a good thing. I really dont think we need Harvard Level CCW courses and divorce court level paperwork. What about guys like me who has had training and qual 5 times, yes FIVE times a year already for years and with shooting trophies? We gotta sit in a classroom for this? Pls dont make it like the 'Good Ole Days' of the DMV.

[Soju 153]

Alot of you folks think the 'training' and annual this or that is a good thing. I really dont think we need Harvard Level CCW courses and divorce court level paperwork. What about guys like me who has had training and qual 5 times, yes FIVE times a year already for years and with shooting trophies? We gotta sit in a classroom for this? Pls dont make it like the 'Good Ole Days' of the DMV.

 

I'm a strong proponent of training. Personal training. The focus should be on individual training and responsibility, not forced mandatory training classes that have varying degrees of usefulness to different people. You shouldn't have to get permission and you certainly shouldn't have to be forced some sort of 'training'. You should WANT to learn, train, and be responsible.

 

A lot of talk gets thrown around about people just buying a gun, never having shot one in their life, and having no understanding of them, and then walking around carrying them. But I bet the vast majority of people legally carrying are plenty qualified. When is the last time you heard of an incident with a CC'er just willy nilly being stupid? When is the last time you heard of a CC'er acting responsible? Not sure about the first, but for the 2nd, well there is a thread on an example that happened just a couple of days ago...

[intercooler 41]

Unless it comes from the US Supreme Court, I am fairly confident NJ will never be a shall issue state.

yup, it's NEVER gonna happen. if you want to carry or be able to defend yourself, move to the free states