Wanting it both ways

[Newtonian 453]

We don't want to prohibit domestic abusers from owning guns, yet we mourn for Carol Browne. Wasn't she shot?

 

We blame the father who accidentally shot his. He was evidently not trained or disciplined enough not to have his finger on the trigger. Yet many among us want people to have guns regardless of their training level.

 

In the first case maybe if he knew she was armed he'd have stayed away. OTOH being a crime of passion and murder and everything that goes with it, it's clear he wasn't thinking. So maybe they'd have had a shootout and he would be killed (justice), or maybe she'd be killed. In any event he was a dangerous guy. Were his guns confiscated? Just asking.

 

Although I have a fair amount of training (albeit below average for this group) I don't believe training should be required to exercise your 2A rights. But what if a range, for example required proof of training before allowing individuals to shoot there? What type and level of training would have prevented that calamity? And what level would you require if you owned a for-profit range? An association range? If you were in charge of a public range?

[leadunderpressure 52]

On the range training issue, I've personally been to ranges that you had to pass a written test on gun safety before being allowed to shoot. Cherry Ridge requires you attend a safety lecture to get a membership to shoot at their range. I'm ok with all of that. What I take issue is handing the government of NJ means to create additional barriers to gun OWNERSHIP. Being at a private range it's no problem for me to prove that I'm not a danger to the guy or gal shooting next to me.

[bhunted 887]

Stabbed.

 

Its also why most ranges have ROs.... Hopefully they'd keep any lunacy in check and guide where needed.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Krdshrk 3,877]

We don't want to prohibit domestic abusers from owning guns, yet we mourn for Carol Browne. Wasn't she shot?

 

She was stabbed

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

Newtonian, on 05 Jul 2016 - 6:08 PM, said:

We don't want to prohibit domestic abusers from owning guns, yet we mourn for Carol Browne. Wasn't she shot?

 

 

She was stabbed

 

Because her local Chief LEO was sitting on her FPID / PPP application beyond the statutory time limit.

[Newtonian 453]

 

Newtonian, on 05 Jul 2016 - 6:08 PM, said:

 

 

Because her local Chief LEO was sitting on her FPID / PPP application beyond the statutory time limit.

 

Sorry about that. Not the first time I've had my facts mixed up.

 

OK then, should he have had a gun? And if she'd been given a FID she still wouldn't have been able to carry in her car. No?

 

I realize that was a rare occurrence, but in light of it should domestic 'abusers' own or carry guns? Philosophic question.

[Newtonian 453]

On the range training issue, I've personally been to ranges that you had to pass a written test on gun safety before being allowed to shoot. Cherry Ridge requires you attend a safety lecture to get a membership to shoot at their range. I'm ok with all of that. What I take issue is handing the government of NJ means to create additional barriers to gun OWNERSHIP. Being at a private range it's no problem for me to prove that I'm not a danger to the guy or gal shooting next to me.

It's not much as far as "training" goes. I don't even mention that when people ask. 

 

How far should a range go in assuring something like shooting a bystander never happens? CR's orientation doesn't train you for much.

[leadunderpressure 52]

That's up to the range. I never said either training was complete by any means. Just offered two ranges where some level was required that I didn't take issue with. Another example, on paper you have to take hunter safety class to get a hunting license and shoot at the state range. In practice not so much.

[Kevin125 4,772]

We don't want to prohibit domestic abusers from owning guns, yet we mourn for Carol Browne. Wasn't she shot?

 

We blame the father who accidentally shot his. He was evidently not trained or disciplined enough not to have his finger on the trigger. Yet many among us want people to have guns regardless of their training level.

 

In the first case maybe if he knew she was armed he'd have stayed away. OTOH being a crime of passion and murder and everything that goes with it, it's clear he wasn't thinking. So maybe they'd have had a shootout and he would be killed (justice), or maybe she'd be killed. In any event he was a dangerous guy. Were his guns confiscated? Just asking.

 

Although I have a fair amount of training (albeit below average for this group) I don't believe training should be required to exercise your 2A rights. But what if a range, for example required proof of training before allowing individuals to shoot there? What type and level of training would have prevented that calamity? And what level would you require if you owned a for-profit range? An association range? If you were in charge of a public range?

?????

 

She was stabbed to death in her driveway.

[woodentoe 14]

As mentioned, Carol Bowne was knifed to death.  Michael Eitel was a convicted felon and prohibited from owning firearms and had served a 5 year prison sentence for weapons offenses. As for requiring training for range access, private clubs usually require you demonstrate safety (OBRP did when I was a member). There is no excuse for the negligence that caused that man to shoot his son. 

[PK90 3,570]

Absolutely no training should be required to exercise a right. No education is needed to vote. No license is required to give your opinion. Accidents will happen, assholes will get elected, and you can say what you want. Of course, there are "common sense" restrictions, many of which have gone overboard. NJ for example.

 

Sent from an undisclosed location via Tapatalk.

[Kevin125 4,772]

When I joined CJ an assessment, albeit a basic one, was required to show that I was not operating unsafely. It included a review and demonstration of range safety procedures.

 

I understand that ranges like Heritage Guild appear to want you to complete something like the NRA Basic Pistol course before they will rent you a firearm.

 

Also.... What level of training make it sufficiently likely that you will not harm yourself or someone else? I think its a very good thing for people to seek training in any potentially hazardous activity. But thats not a condition of the right to keep and bear arms. And therefore it cannot be regulated by the govt. we as a sporting, self defense promoting, liberty defending community on the other hand should promote it as a voluntary choice. And we do.

 

Shit happens. The entire shooting community could get navy seal weapons training. But it won't stop every accident. The fact that there are firearms accidents does invalidate what we believe.

[Newtonian 453]

Shit happens. The entire shooting community could get navy seal weapons training. But it won't stop every accident. The fact that there are firearms accidents does invalidate what we believe.

 

Thank you. Nobody but you and me seems to believe this though. I think you meant "doesn't" invalidate correct? No more than there being drowning accidents invalidates my belief in water.

 

The Carol Browne comment was for example purposes only. Doesn't really matter if he stabbed or shot or poisoned her. The ease of being designated as such notwithstanding, should domestic abusers be armed? 

 

This reminds me of the question about guns and no-fly lists, where the real issue is why we have so many people on that list and not, I believe, in whether someone who would blow up an airplane should own a gun.

[Kevin125 4,772]

Ah...yes.. i meant DOESN'T.

 

Sorry

 

Yeah.. I was going to make an aviation analogy about how insurance companies hold the reins on a lot of "who can fly what type of plane" but its not entirely relevant.

 

Insurance companies want you to have a certain amount of hours of instruction or "right seat" time in more advance aircraft to cover you, even if you hold a license to fly that type of aircraft. My license covers me for most aircraft you could name, but there isn't an insurance company in America that would cover me for the really big, fast ones.

 

But yeah.. We should all seek training. If we are in a defensive situation, its better and smarter to be prepared.

[leadunderpressure 52]

The number of people on the nonfly list is relatively small at this time. The issue is how you prove that you don't belong on it.

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

Should domestic abusers be armed...? My knee jerk reaction is "No, of course not." But the devil is in the details as they say. The definition of "abuse" is being stretched beyond recognition these days. Also, anyone can claim abuse - in the heated case of a divorcing couple, for instance, I don't ignore the fact that sometimes people lie (on both sides). I guess answer is: I don't know!

[Kevin125 4,772]

Here's thing about domestic abusers. The way the libs want to do it. There is no due process and no recourse for being falsely accused. I get it that in some abusive situations, there are no witnesses. But we cant just give carte blanche to someone who will abuse the abuse issue. And it does happen. A lot. Its the woman's answer to revenge porn.

 

If -anything- should be done, it should be immediate and the accused should be permitted to defend himself without delay. A judge should decide..fairly...if thats even possible.

 

If there's evidence of physical abuse, or credible witnesses to threats made, then maybe there's grounds for restrictions. But both sides need to be considered and it needs to happen ...speedily.

 

That's not what is being proposed. And the safety of women is not the main reason this is being proposed.

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

And the safety of women is not the main reason this is being proposed.

 

This I do tend to agree with. It's a farce. A means to an ends.

 

Here's an idea: free shooting instruction for DV victims by designated police instructors... and once she's really hitting the target well... the cop in charge takes one of her targets, sits down with the accused abuser, and says "Daaaaamn, she's really become a great shot, huh? I'd stay away if I were you!" (And I'm only half-joking...!)

[JohnnyB 4,325]

The number of people on the nonfly list is relatively small at this time. The issue is how you prove that you don't belong on it.

Many years ago, my Brother-in-law's soon to be ex wife called the police and said be verbally abused her.

The cops showed up at the door and took all of his guns away. She filed for a restraining order and later dropped 

the verbal abuse charge and rescinded the RO. It took him 4 years to get his guns back. there were only a few and all junk.

He wanted to walk away and let the prosecutor's office keep them. On principle alone, I pushed him and he did get them back!

 

I would bet if he went for a FPID that he would be denied. It's all too easy to get on the domestic violence list since verbal abuse is domestic violence in the PRNJ!

[Kevin125 4,772]

I was on some sort of list. I could never print out my boarding pass. I was pulled aside and questioned on every single flight.

 

Then after a few years, it stopped. Only thing I can think of is some IRA has the same name as me.

 

I asked TSA about it. They said there was nothing That could be done.

[gleninjersey 2,141]

This I do tend to agree with. It's a farce. A means to an ends.

 

Here's an idea: free shooting instruction for DV victims by designated police instructors... and once she's really hitting the target well... the cop in charge takes one of her targets, sits down with the accused abuser, and says "Daaaaamn, she's really become a great shot, huh? I'd stay away if I were you!" (And I'm only half-joking...!)

Carol Bowne was waiting over 30 days for FID and permit. She didn't have a firearm because her local PD dragged their feet. She could have been a crack shot. Wouldn't have mattered thanks to our state's "common sense gun laws" which kept this woman defenseless.

 

I get your point though.

[Oleg 8]

Formal training once is not enough to be even remotely safe with guns. It is a continuous process. My wife shoots with me maybe twice - three times a year. She hit targets, but she needs a nanny to handle start and end of shooting. It is painfully obvious she can not handle guns alone unless she starts coming to range often and get into safe gun handling habits.

[gleninjersey 2,141]

Unless.Heritage Guiild cchanged their policy, all I did was watch a safety video. Same one they show at the other indoor ranges I've been to (RTSP and one in Flemington....Tactical Solutions?). No training required.

[Schrödinger's cat 87]

I was on some sort of list. I could never print out my boarding pass. I was pulled aside and questioned on every single flight.

 

Then after a few years, it stopped. Only thing I can think of is some IRA has the same name as me.

 

I asked TSA about it. They said there was nothing That could be done.

I've actually been pulled off a plane as I was boarding. They said my name was similar to a name on the no fly list.

[Kevin125 4,772]

Thank you. Nobody but you and me seems to believe this though. I think you meant "doesn't" invalidate correct? No more than there being drowning accidents invalidates my belief in water.

 

The Carol Browne comment was for example purposes only. Doesn't really matter if he stabbed or shot or poisoned her. The ease of being designated as such notwithstanding, should domestic abusers be armed? 

 

This reminds me of the question about guns and no-fly lists, where the real issue is why we have so many people on that list and not, I believe, in whether someone who would blow up an airplane should own a gun.

On the no fly list.... If we think someone may be a terrorist, why are they not in custody if such probable cause exists to not allow them on a plane?

 

There should not be a No fly list.

 

Arrest them if there is cause. Then let the case unfold as it will. If there's no evidence, then why the hell are they being watched?

[Newtonian 453]

Here's thing about domestic abusers. The way the libs want to do it. There is no due process and no recourse for being falsely accused. I get it that in some abusive situations, there are no witnesses. But we cant just give carte blanche to someone who will abuse the abuse issue. And it does happen. A lot. Its the woman's answer to revenge porn.

 

If -anything- should be done, it should be immediate and the accused should be permitted to defend himself without delay. A judge should decide..fairly...if thats even possible.

 

If there's evidence of physical abuse, or credible witnesses to threats made, then maybe there's grounds for restrictions. But both sides need to be considered and it needs to happen ...speedily.

 

That's not what is being proposed. And the safety of women is not the main reason this is being proposed.

There are interesting similarities between the much-abused abuse designations and the no-fly lists. You can be classified as an abuser or a terror threat for any reason or no reason. It should be easier to disprove the latter based on one's history, much of which these days is documented electronically in some way. Proving you didn't "verbally abuse" (the poor little flower!) a female is impossible. In both cases you don't want the "real deal" to have a gun. Question is how to implement fairly and legally.

[Newtonian 453]

Here's thing about domestic abusers. The way the libs want to do it. There is no due process and no recourse for being falsely accused. I get it that in some abusive situations, there are no witnesses. But we cant just give carte blanche to someone who will abuse the abuse issue. And it does happen. A lot. Its the woman's answer to revenge porn.

 

If -anything- should be done, it should be immediate and the accused should be permitted to defend himself without delay. A judge should decide..fairly...if thats even possible.

 

If there's evidence of physical abuse, or credible witnesses to threats made, then maybe there's grounds for restrictions. But both sides need to be considered and it needs to happen ...speedily.

 

That's not what is being proposed. And the safety of women is not the main reason this is being proposed.

There are interesting similarities between the much-abused abuse designations and the no-fly lists. You can be classified as an abuser or a terror threat for any reason or no reason. It should be easier to disprove the latter based on one's history, much of which these days is documented electronically in some way. Proving you didn't "verbally abuse" (the poor little flower!) a female is impossible. In both cases you don't want the "real deal" to have a gun. Question is how to implement fairly and legally.

[Kevin125 4,772]

There are interesting similarities between the much-abused abuse designations and the no-fly lists. You can be classified as an abuser or a terror threat for any reason or no reason. It should be easier to disprove the latter based on one's history, much of which these days is documented electronically in some way. Proving you didn't "verbally abuse" (the poor little flower!) a female is impossible. In both cases you don't want the "real deal" to have a gun. Question is how to implement fairly and legally.

 

I'd say to implement it fairly and legally would be to not trample of the rights to the accused.

We can't prevent every crime with some law.  Liberals think more laws are the answer to everything.   It's their inherent flaw.  They think they can achieve Utopia if there were just enough laws and the throbbing masses were controlled in just the right way...

 

They are spectacularly wrong.

 

The standard has to be concrete evidence of abuse.  Without it.. ie... claims that "he yells at me and threatens me"... just isn't enough.

 

So then... in cases where "he yells are me and threatens me" is actually what's going on.... the abused needs to leave.  Seek shelter elsewhere.  A family member, a friend, a co-worker.  If it can't be proven and the person feels threatened, they can make a decision to remove themselves from the environment.  Yeah, that's puts a burden on them.  No one said life was always fair.

 

Maybe there are kids involved.  Then it's the abused DUTY to remove them from that environment.

 

Another solution is to be prepared to defend yourself if you choose to stay in a hostile situation.  This would be a no-kid situation.  Buy a gun.

 

But.... if you (the abused) think that the best option is to buy a gun and stay, rather than leave and file for divorce, or whatever other legal separation action possible, I think the abused needs their head examined.

 

There just isn't a law for every problem we face.  Sometimes we have to take action to resolve our situation.  It may not be comfortable and may in fact be a burden, but that's the way it goes.  Pick a better mate next time.

[Newtonian 453]

I'd say to implement it fairly and legally would be to not trample of the rights to the accused.

We can't prevent every crime with some law.  Liberals think more laws are the answer to everything.   It's their inherent flaw.

And ours is believing that the Constitution covers every circumstance. Not to beat a dead horse but the terror watch lists contain 1.5 million names. How many are for real? Probably a lot less than 1.5 million, but also a lot more than we could reasonably process in a manner that does not trample on liberty "without due process." The question of due process is itself vague -- the constitution leaves it up to us to figure out the details; it's not a set, constitutionally mandated set of procedures as some believe.

 

This is a conundrum of our own creation. I don't know the answer. 

[345Sire 158]

I'd say to implement it fairly and legally would be to not trample of the rights to the accused.

We can't prevent every crime with some law.  Liberals think more laws are the answer to everything.   It's their inherent flaw.  They think they can achieve Utopia if there were just enough laws and the throbbing masses were controlled in just the right way...

 

They are spectacularly wrong.

 

The standard has to be concrete evidence of abuse.  Without it.. ie... claims that "he yells at me and threatens me"... just isn't enough.

 

So then... in cases where "he yells are me and threatens me" is actually what's going on.... the abused needs to leave.  Seek shelter elsewhere.  A family member, a friend, a co-worker.  If it can't be proven and the person feels threatened, they can make a decision to remove themselves from the environment.  Yeah, that's puts a burden on them.  No one said life was always fair.

 

Maybe there are kids involved.  Then it's the abused DUTY to remove them from that environment.

 

Another solution is to be prepared to defend yourself if you choose to stay in a hostile situation.  This would be a no-kid situation.  Buy a gun.

 

But.... if you (the abused) think that the best option is to buy a gun and stay, rather than leave and file for divorce, or whatever other legal separation action possible, I think the abused needs their head examined.

 

There just isn't a law for every problem we face.  Sometimes we have to take action to resolve our situation.  It may not be comfortable and may in fact be a burden, but that's the way it goes.  Pick a better mate next time.

"So then... in cases where "he yells are me and threatens me" is actually what's going on.... the abused needs to leave.  Seek shelter elsewhere.  A family member, a friend, a co-worker.  If it can't be proven and the person feels threatened, they can make a decision to remove themselves from the environment.  Yeah, that's puts a burden on them.  No one said life was always fair."

 

Wasn't there a gent on here a bit back who was told to find another profession when he wanted to protect himself with "justifiable need" being he was threatened?

 

I do personally think the potential victims of abuse, like any American citizen, should be able to purchase protection in the form of firearms if that's their preference.